Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery : official journal of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons · 2010
Mandibular ramus/coronoid process grafts in maxillofacial reconstructive surgery.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Amrani Saar, Anastassov George E, Montazem Andre H
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To evaluate the utility of autogenous extended mandibular ramus and coronoid process bone grafts for maxillofacial reconstructive surgery.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twelve patients aged 23 to 76 years (mean, 52) who underwent extended ramus/coronoid process grafts for reconstruction of maxillofacial deformities due to trauma, alveolar atrophy, or iatrogenic nasal deformity. All patients had either unilateral or bilateral combined coronoid process-mandibular ramus bone grafts for their reconstruction. There was 1 nasal reconstruction, 2 unilateral mandibles, 1 bilateral mandible, 4 unilateral maxillas, 1 unilateral maxilla and mandible combined, and 1 bilateral maxilla and mandible combined.
RESULTS: The procedure was considered a success when the patient's deformities were reconstructed ad integrum and when there were no failures of the dental implants placed in the augmented areas as of the longest follow-up. All patients were successfully reconstructed. There was 1 infection at a donor site that resolved with local care and oral antibiotics. All but 1 of the maxillary and mandibular alveolar augmentations underwent endosteal implant placement approximately 4 to 6 months following grafting. The nasal reconstruction restored normal function and symmetry.
CONCLUSION: Using both the coronoid process of the mandible and the mandibular ramus as a source for autogenous bone graft can provide sufficient bone in quantity and quality for selected maxillofacial reconstructions.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twelve patients aged 23 to 76 years (mean, 52) who underwent extended ramus/coronoid process grafts for reconstruction of maxillofacial deformities due to trauma, alveolar atrophy, or iatrogenic nasal deformity. All patients had either unilateral or bilateral combined coronoid process-mandibular ramus bone grafts for their reconstruction. There was 1 nasal reconstruction, 2 unilateral mandibles, 1 bilateral mandible, 4 unilateral maxillas, 1 unilateral maxilla and mandible combined, and 1 bilateral maxilla and mandible combined.
RESULTS: The procedure was considered a success when the patient's deformities were reconstructed ad integrum and when there were no failures of the dental implants placed in the augmented areas as of the longest follow-up. All patients were successfully reconstructed. There was 1 infection at a donor site that resolved with local care and oral antibiotics. All but 1 of the maxillary and mandibular alveolar augmentations underwent endosteal implant placement approximately 4 to 6 months following grafting. The nasal reconstruction restored normal function and symmetry.
CONCLUSION: Using both the coronoid process of the mandible and the mandibular ramus as a source for autogenous bone graft can provide sufficient bone in quantity and quality for selected maxillofacial reconstructions.