Limits...
The use of autogeneous mandibular bone block grafts for reconstruction of alveolar defects.

Dolanmaz D, Esen A, Yıldırım G, İnan Ö - Ann Maxillofac Surg (2015 Jan-Jun)

Bottom Line: The region was curetted and antibiotics administrated again.In all the patients, as the screw head became apparent until 1 thread, amount of the resorption were considered <1.5 mm.The usage of mandibular block grafts is a simple and effective treatment modality for reconstruction of different types of alveolar defects and it also reduces cost of treatment.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Selcuk University, Konya, Turkey.

ABSTRACT

Objective: Purpose of this retrospective study was to evaluate outcomes autogenous bone block grafts obtained from mandible for different indications. The healing of the donor and recipient sites in the postoperative period, morbidity and the resorption of the graft were investigated.

Patients and methods: Twenty-nine patients grafted with mandibular bone block graft were participated in the present study. Grafting was applied in these patients for three indications; reconstruction of alveolar cleft, lateral crest augmentation before dental implantation and sinus floor augmentation. All operations were performed under local anesthesia and in some cases sedation was used as well.

Results: Minimal exposure of the block graft occurred in three alveolar cleft patients. Secondary epithelization was achieved in all cleft patients with no symptoms of infection. In one patient infection was seen in donor site 1-week after the operation. The region was curetted and antibiotics administrated again. Two patients showed an infection of recipient site, after 4 weeks the grafts were removed. In all the patients, as the screw head became apparent until 1 thread, amount of the resorption were considered <1.5 mm.

Conclusion: The usage of mandibular block grafts is a simple and effective treatment modality for reconstruction of different types of alveolar defects and it also reduces cost of treatment.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

(a) Defect of donor site and placement of symphysis block graft with a screw to the recipient site. (b) Well incorporation of bone graft and minimal resorption of around the screw is seen after 5 months. (c) Placement of two implants. (d) Prosthetic image
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4555953&req=5

Figure 2: (a) Defect of donor site and placement of symphysis block graft with a screw to the recipient site. (b) Well incorporation of bone graft and minimal resorption of around the screw is seen after 5 months. (c) Placement of two implants. (d) Prosthetic image

Mentions: Twenty patients were treated with lateral alveolar augmentation. Seventeen of these patients were partially and three were completely edentulous. The mean age of the patients was 37.7 years. 19 block graft were obtained from ramus and 6 from symphysis [Table 1]. The surgical intervention for alveolar crest augmentation consisted of two phases. In the first phase, one or more bone blocks harvested from mandibular ramus or symphysis were fixed with titanium screws to the recipient site to achieve a horizontal augmentation of the ridge volume. In the second phase, 4–6 months later, fixation screws were removed and the implants were placed simultaneously [Figure 2].


The use of autogeneous mandibular bone block grafts for reconstruction of alveolar defects.

Dolanmaz D, Esen A, Yıldırım G, İnan Ö - Ann Maxillofac Surg (2015 Jan-Jun)

(a) Defect of donor site and placement of symphysis block graft with a screw to the recipient site. (b) Well incorporation of bone graft and minimal resorption of around the screw is seen after 5 months. (c) Placement of two implants. (d) Prosthetic image
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4555953&req=5

Figure 2: (a) Defect of donor site and placement of symphysis block graft with a screw to the recipient site. (b) Well incorporation of bone graft and minimal resorption of around the screw is seen after 5 months. (c) Placement of two implants. (d) Prosthetic image
Mentions: Twenty patients were treated with lateral alveolar augmentation. Seventeen of these patients were partially and three were completely edentulous. The mean age of the patients was 37.7 years. 19 block graft were obtained from ramus and 6 from symphysis [Table 1]. The surgical intervention for alveolar crest augmentation consisted of two phases. In the first phase, one or more bone blocks harvested from mandibular ramus or symphysis were fixed with titanium screws to the recipient site to achieve a horizontal augmentation of the ridge volume. In the second phase, 4–6 months later, fixation screws were removed and the implants were placed simultaneously [Figure 2].

Bottom Line: The region was curetted and antibiotics administrated again.In all the patients, as the screw head became apparent until 1 thread, amount of the resorption were considered <1.5 mm.The usage of mandibular block grafts is a simple and effective treatment modality for reconstruction of different types of alveolar defects and it also reduces cost of treatment.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Selcuk University, Konya, Turkey.

ABSTRACT

Objective: Purpose of this retrospective study was to evaluate outcomes autogenous bone block grafts obtained from mandible for different indications. The healing of the donor and recipient sites in the postoperative period, morbidity and the resorption of the graft were investigated.

Patients and methods: Twenty-nine patients grafted with mandibular bone block graft were participated in the present study. Grafting was applied in these patients for three indications; reconstruction of alveolar cleft, lateral crest augmentation before dental implantation and sinus floor augmentation. All operations were performed under local anesthesia and in some cases sedation was used as well.

Results: Minimal exposure of the block graft occurred in three alveolar cleft patients. Secondary epithelization was achieved in all cleft patients with no symptoms of infection. In one patient infection was seen in donor site 1-week after the operation. The region was curetted and antibiotics administrated again. Two patients showed an infection of recipient site, after 4 weeks the grafts were removed. In all the patients, as the screw head became apparent until 1 thread, amount of the resorption were considered <1.5 mm.

Conclusion: The usage of mandibular block grafts is a simple and effective treatment modality for reconstruction of different types of alveolar defects and it also reduces cost of treatment.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus