Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-45l2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T01:11:42.104Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Experience in Reconstructive Surgery of Craniomaxillofacial Deformities: With Osteomesh, Eleven Years Experience

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 February 2011

Mutaz B. Habal  and
Donald L. Leake
Mutaz B. Habal
Affiliation:
Tampa Bay Craniofacial Center, Institute of Human Resources, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL
Donald L. Leake
Affiliation:
Dental Research Institute, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA
Get access

Abstract

The best possible implantable biomaterial for bony contour abnormalities is autogenous bone grafts. However, some conditions may be present that require use of alloplastic materials. Such alloplastic material must be inert and there should be no reaction in the body to it. The composite graft described in this chapter is a combination of the two different materials described. To have a better take, the bone graft used is ground with a craniotome, and then mixed with blood. This produces an inductive matrix that promotes osteoneogenesis. The alloplastic material is a tray or a template where the bone is placed “in”, “on”, or “under” the implant to allow for complete solidification and better healing. The material used is polyetherurethane-impregnated terephthalate (Dacon) also referred to as osteomesh (R) (Xomed Corporation, Jacksonville, Florida). In a few instances the osteomesh was removed and we noted complete solidification of the bone (resembling skull in the case of the skull defect). For over eleven years, since the success in the experimental animal [1], this composite graft was used in clinical situations with good success [2] in over 100 patients. These patients treated were selected and a strict set of indications and contraindications were instituted and implemented, prior to the applications of this treatment in the individual patient.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 55: Symposium G – Biomedical Materials , 1985 , 105
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Leake, D.L. and Rappoport, M., Surgery 34, 585 (1972).Google Scholar
2. Leake, D.L., Habal, Mutaz B., Schwartz, H., Michieli, S., and Pizzoferrato, A., in Mechanical Properties of Biomaterials, Vol. 34, ed. by Hastings, G.W. and Williams, D.F., (John Wiley and Sons, Ltd., 1980) p. 419.Google Scholar
3. Leake, D.L., in Biocompatibility in Clinical Practice, Vol. 11, ed. by Williams, David F. (CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, 1982) p. 183.Google Scholar
4. Leake, D.L. and Habal, Mutaz B., Trancations of the International Society of Plastic Surgeons, 355 (1983).Google Scholar
5. Habal, Mutaz B., Leake, D.L., Mansicalco, J.E., and Kim, J., Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 61, 394 (1978).Google Scholar
6. Habal, Mutaz B., Velasco, R.U., Spiegel, P.G., and Leake, D.L., Annals of Plastic Surgery 15, 138 (1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Leake, D.L. and Habal, Mutaz B., British Journal of Oral Surgery 16, 198 (1978–1979).Google Scholar
8. Schwartz, H.C., Wollin, M., Leake, D.L., and Kagan, A.R., AMAA rch. Otolaryngol 105, 293 (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar