China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Additive manufacturing in the craniofacial area
Published in Ali Khademhosseini, Gulden Camci-Unal, 3D Bioprinting in Regenerative Engineering, 2018
Cedryck Vaquette, Kelly McGowan, Saso Ivanovski
There is a wide variation in the degree of alveolar bone resorption experienced between patients, however some general patterns have been observed. Following the removal of a single tooth, Pietrokovski and Massler [6] found that hard and soft tissue resorption was twice as pronounced on the buccal aspect compared to palatal or lingual areas, and that specific teeth underwent more resorption than others. These findings were supported by a more recent study by Schropp et al. [7], which found that after 12 months, 50% of the alveolar ridge width was lost in addition to substantial bone height. Van der Weijden et al. [8] quantified the weighted mean bone changes after three months to be a 3.87 mm reduction in width and 1.67–2.03 mm in vertical bone loss, whereas at six months post extraction, Hammerle et al. [9] and Tan et al. [10] reported a 63% and 22% reduction in horizontal and vertical dimensions, respectively. The resulting bone loss is more severe where multiple teeth have been removed, with Bergman and Carlsson [11] demonstrating that most of the bone tissue of the alveolar process is eventually lost in these situations in the long term, as demonstrated by comparing profiles of the edentulous mandible and maxilla at 2 days, 5 years, and 21 years after tooth extraction. This means that patients who are missing multiple teeth and are the most likely to need dental reconstruction are also the ones who have the least amount of bone available to anchor implant-supported prosthesis.
The opportunity of using alloplastic bone augmentation materials in the maxillofacial region– Literature review
Published in Particulate Science and Technology, 2019
Simion Bran, Grigore Baciut, Mihaela Baciut, Ileana Mitre, Florin Onisor, Mihaela Hedesiu, Avram Manea
Some authors still consider the autogenous bone grafts to be the “golden standard” in alveolar ridge reconstruction and augmentation for oral implantology. Their main arguments are the predictability of the results and limited harvesting morbidity (Sakkas et al. 2017). Other studies suggest that results after using xenografts or alloplastic materials are similar to those obtained with autogenous bone grafts (Lutz et al. 2015). The choice between the two techniques is influenced by the surgeon’s preferences and expertise, the patient’s option, anatomical considerations, available alloplastic materials etc. It is obvious that there is no general “optimal solution” in such cases, only the best fitted solution for that certain case. Alloplastic bone augmentation materials provide obvious benefits: zero morbidity at donor site, available in unlimited quantities, increased patient acceptance and the existence of several shapes and sizes. Their usage to repair craniofacial defects has increased lately and will increase even more in the future (Profeta and Huppa 2016). Researchers are constantly trying to evaluate which of the currently available alloplastic materials are better, improve them and even come up with new materials (Lee and Volpicelli 2017). New alloplastic materials, in the form of granules, powder and even scaffolds are welcomed in this effort to offer better results in terms of new bone quantity and quality, healing times, production costs and finally increased patient satisfaction.