Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2pzkn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-01T15:24:52.168Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ceravital © in ossiculoplasty: experimental studies* and early clinical results†

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 June 2007

A. W. Blayney ,
J.-P. Bebear ,
K. R. Williams  and
M. Portmann
A. W. Blayney*
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, The University of Hospital of Wales, Cardiff. Laboratoire d& Audioologie Expérimentale Insert U. 229. Bordeaux
J.-P. Bebear
Affiliation:
Clinique Universitaire d& ORL, University of Bordeaux II.
K. R. Williams
Affiliation:
Department of Prosthetics and Reconstructive Dentistry,The University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff.
M. Portmann
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, The University of Hospital of Wales, Cardiff. Laboratoire d& Audioologie Expérimentale Insert U. 229. Bordeaux
*
A. W. Blayney, M.Ch., F.R.C.S., Department of Otolaryngology, The University of Hospital of Wales,Heath Park, Cardiff, Wales
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The biocompatibility of the bioactive glass-ceramic Ceravital was investigated experimentally both in vivo and in vitro. In the former, ceramic discs were interposed in 30 rat middle ears for periods ranging from 6 weeks to 12 months. In the latter, Ceravital otological prosthesis were placed in human fibroblast culture.

Reactions to the biomaterial were assessed by means of scanning electron microscopy (SEM) with chemical analysis facilities (EDAX, WDAX) and light microscopy.

The interface reactions were similar in both in vivo and in vitro studies and confirmed the findings of other authors regarding the implants& biocompatibility and bioactivity. The technique of ion etching, however, enabled clear demonstration of this bioactivity on the implant surface, exposed merely to the middle-ear secretions, thus questioning the necessity of placing bone pate on the implant head at surgery, in order to encourage bioactive bonding with the overlying drum.

A clinical trial of Ceravital in 128 patients with an average follow-up period of 2 years is reported. Forty per cent of these patients underwent a type II tympanoplasty, 60 per cent a type III. Though relatively short-term, the results to date have been encouraging: 88 per cent of the implants have been well-tolerated; 70 per cent of the cases have yielded a satisfactory hearing result; and only 3 per cent of the implanted prostheses have been extruded.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 100 , Issue 12 , December 1986 , pp. 1359 - 1366
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 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.)

Footnotes

©

Cevital—a trademark of Ernst Leitz Wetzlar Gmbh, D- 6330 Wetzler-Germany.

*

Department of Otolaryngology, The University of Hospital of Wales, Cardiff

†

The University of Bordeaux II, France.

References

Babighian, G. (1985) Bioactive ceramics versus Proplast implants in ossiculoplasty. American Journal of Otology, 6: 285–290.Google ScholarPubMed
Bebear, J.-P. (1985) Symposium sur les biomateriaux dans l'oreille moyenne, Bordeaux, France. (Proceedings in press.)Google Scholar
Blavney, A. W., Williams, K. R., Frootko, N. J. and Ashton, B. A. (1985) L'utilisation de la culture de fibroblastes dans l'étude de l'interface os-céramique. Revue de Laryngologie, Otologie, Rhinologie (in press).Google Scholar
Blencke, B. A., Bromer, H. and Deutscher, K. (1978) Compatibility and long-term stability of glass-ceramic implants. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research, 12: 307–316.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gersdorff, M. and Andre, M. (1985) Comparative study of the clinical results obtained by means of Plastipore and of ceramic ossicular prosthesis in otologie surgery. Archives Otolaryngology (in press).Google Scholar
Gross, U., Branders, J., Strunz, V., Bab, I. and Sela, J. (1981) The ultrastructure of the interface between a glass ceramic and bone. Journal of Biomedical materials research, 15: 291–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heimke, G. and Griss, P. (1980) Ceramic implant materials. Medical and Biological Engineering and Computing, 18: 503–510.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Plester, D. and Zollner, F. (1980) Behandlung der chronischen Mittelohrentzundungen. In: Berendes, J., Link, R., Zollner, f. (Hrsg): HNO-Heilkunde in Praxis and Klinik 6/Ohr II, Stuttgart, 28: 1–101.Google Scholar
Portmann, M., Bebear, J.-P., Bagot D'Arc, M. and Diogo de Paiva, A. (1983) Comparative study of different ossicular prosthesis in tympanoplasty. In: Biomaterials in Otology, Grote, J. J., Ed. 177–186, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Hague.Google Scholar
Reck, R. (1981) Tissue reactions to glass ceramics in the middle ear. Clinical Otolaryngology, 6: 63–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reck, R. (1983) Bioactive glass ceramic: a new material in tympanoplasty. Laryngoscope, 93: 196–199.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reck, R. (1984) Bioactive glass-ceramics in ear-surgery: animal studies and clinical results. Laryngoscope,Supplement 33, vol. 94, n-2, part 2 02.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reck, R. and Helms, J. (1983) Fundamental aspects of Bioglass and surgery with bioactive glass ceramic implants. In: “Biomaterials in Otology”, Grote, J. J., Ed. 230–241. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Hague.Google Scholar