Craniofacial reconstruction with bone and biomaterials: review over the last 11 years.
This review aims to compare bone grafts and different biomaterials for reconstruction of craniofacial bones in congenital defects, after trauma, and after tumour surgery. A Pubmed search was performed and publications over the last 11 years describing reconstructions of craniofacial bones in non-load-bearing areas were reviewed. Only human studies using bone grafts and biomaterials were included. Studies on skull base reconstruction, distraction osteogenesis, free and pedicled bone flaps and bone-anchored epithesis were excluded. Out of 83 studies, three were prospective, 65 retrospective and 15 studies were case reports. There were seven comparative studies found and some efforts on statistical analysis were made. Except for a few studies, the statistical significant differences in outcomes were found to be related to size and location of bone defects rather than reconstruction method and biomaterial used. An increasing number of alloplastic materials have been available as alternatives to the gold standard autologous bone transplantation for craniofacial bone repair. Comparative studies with statistical analyses on differences in success rates between different biomaterials or bone grafts for specific indications are needed.
Neovius
Erik
E
Stockholm Craniofacial Centre, Department of Reconstructive Plastic Surgery, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden. erik.neovius@karolinska.se
Engstrand
Thomas
T
D001672:Biocompatible Materials / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D001859:Bone Neoplasms / Q000601:surgery*; D018786:Bone Substitutes / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D016025:Bone Transplantation / Q000379:methods*; D005147:Facial Bones / Q000601:surgery*; D005151:Facial Injuries / Q000601:surgery*; D006801:Humans; D019651:Plastic Surgery Procedures / Q000379:methods*
D001672:Biocompatible Materials; D018786:Bone Substitutes