4.4 Article

Assessment of bioabsorbable hydroxyapatite for secondary bone grafting in unilateral alveolar cleft

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.bjps.2015.10.040

关键词

Alveolar cleft; Secondary bone graft; Hydroxyapatite; Iliac bone; MDCT; Computer-aided engineering

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate the utility and efficacy of bioabsorbable hydroxyapatite and collagen complex for secondary bone graft in unilateral alveolar cleft. Patients and methods: From August 2013 to January 2014, 15 patients with unilateral cleft lip and alveolar cleft were enrolled and randomly assigned to two blinded groups. In group I, a cancellous iliac bone graftwas placed at the alveolar cleft. In group II, 0.5ml of HA/Col was placed at the alveolar cleft, and the cancellous iliac bone was positioned in the remaining space. All patients underwent bone grafting with particulate cancellous bone and marrow taken from the anterior iliac crest. Results: No complications were observed in any patient. The groups did not differ in age, cleft volume, or surgical duration. Intraoperative blood loss and patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCA) use were significantly lower in group II (p<0.05) in comparison to group I. The 1-month volume was 0.895 ml in group I and 0.482 ml in group II (p<0.05). When the 1-month volume in group II was adjusted for 0.5-ml volume of HA/Col, there was no significant difference in the 1-month volumes (p = 0.32). The 6- and 12-month volumes did not differ significantly between the groups (p = 0.768 and p = 0.165, respectively). Conclusion: The autogenous bone was gradually absorbed, while the HA/Col was absorbed and replaced by the autogenous bone. Thus, HA/Col can be used as an iliac graft in alveolar bone graft procedures to reduce the amount of autogenous bone required from the crest, patient stress, and morbidity. (C) 2015 British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据