PD28 Mandibular endosseous implants and autogenous bone grafting in irradiated tissue in head and neck oncology patients

2007 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 113-114
Author(s):  
E. Keller
2009 ◽  
Vol 35 (4) ◽  
pp. 181-184 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey A. Elo ◽  
Alan S. Herford ◽  
Philip J. Boyne

Abstract Endosseous implants are the treatment of choice for restoring function and reconstructing most edentulous areas of the maxilla and mandible. In general, alveolar bone defects can be reconstructed by either distraction osteogenesis or autogenous bone grafting. After alveolar reconstruction, endosseous implants are used to support and retain the prosthesis for restoration of form and function. Eighty-two consecutive patients requiring alveolar augmentation prior to implant placement were evaluated. All patients were given treatment options for reconstructing their alveolar defects, which included autogenous bone grafting vs distraction osteogenesis. Sixty-five patients received autogenous grafts (anterior iliac crest: 44; retromolar: 17; tibia: 2; chin: 2), and 17 patients underwent distraction osteogenesis prior to implant placement. A total of 184 implants were placed in the autogenous bone-grafted sites and 56 implants in the distracted bone sites. Implants placed in sites restored with autogenous bone grafts had an implant success rate of 97% (178/184), whereas implants placed in distracted bone sites had a success rate of 98% (55/56). In the autogenous grafted group, 3 implants failed in the posterior mandible, one in the anterior maxilla, one in the anterior mandible, and one in the posterior maxilla. In the distraction group, one implant failed in the posterior mandible. Both techniques are associated with good success rates. There was no statistical difference between implant success in autogenous bone vs distracted bone sites in this group of patients.


2018 ◽  
Vol 07 (05) ◽  
pp. 419-423 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rishabh Jethanandani ◽  
Schneider Rancy ◽  
Keith Corpus ◽  
Jeffrey Yao ◽  
Scott Wolfe

Background Isolated capitate nonunion is rare. No consensus on the appropriate treatment for this condition exists. Case Description We reported two cases of capitate fracture nonunion presenting several months after untreated high-impact wrist trauma. Treatment was delayed as both patients' nonunions were missed on conventional radiographs. Both were ultimately diagnosed with advanced imaging and successfully treated with internal fixation and autogenous bone grafting. The relevant literature pertaining to capitate nonunion was reviewed. Literature Review Immobilization and internal fixation with bone grafting for capitate nonunion have been described in the literature. Loss of vascular supply and progression to avascular necrosis is a concern after capitate nonunion. Clinical Relevance We present two cases and review the literature on the diagnosis and treatment of this rare injury to guide management. Internal fixation with autogenous bone grafting could play a role in management for this rare condition.


Author(s):  
Luke Cascarini ◽  
Clare Schilling ◽  
Ben Gurney ◽  
Peter Brennan

OMFS on the ward 174 Trauma patients 176 Dento-alveolar patients 178 Head and neck oncology patients 180 Flap monitoring 184 The tracheostomy patient 186 Orthognathic patients 188 • Since OMFS is a small specialty with relatively few inpatients, it rarely has a dedicated ward and often shares with ENT or another small surgical specialty...


1993 ◽  
Vol &NA; (295) ◽  
pp. 112???118 ◽  
Author(s):  
MICHAEL J. PATZAKIS ◽  
KAI MAZUR ◽  
JEANETTE WILKINS ◽  
RANDOLPH SHERMAN ◽  
PAUL HOLTOM

Author(s):  
Byun J. ◽  
Pyo S. ◽  
Hwang D. ◽  
Sung I. ◽  
Jin S. ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document