Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

  • Volume 42
  • /
  • Pages.15.1-15.8
  • /
  • 2020
  • /
  • 2288-8101(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2288-8586(eISSN)
Korean Association of Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons (대한악안면성형재건외과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Patient-specific implants for maxillofacial defects: challenges and solutions

  • Received : 2020.04.02
  • Accepted : 2020.05.12
  • Published : 2020.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background: Reconstructing maxillofacial defects is quite challenging for most surgeons due to the region's complex anatomy and cosmetic and functional effects on patients. The use of pre-made alloplastic implants and autogenous grafts is often associated with resorption, infection, and displacement. Recent technological advances have led to the use of custom computer-designed patient-specific implants (PSIs) in reconstructive surgery. This study describes our experience with PSI, details the complications we faced, how to overcome them, and finally, evaluates patient satisfaction. Case presentation: Six patients underwent reconstruction of various maxillofacial defects arising due to different etiologies using PSI. A combined total of 10 implants was used. PEEK was used to fabricate 8, while titanium was used to fabricate 2. No complications were seen in any patient both immediately post-op and in subsequent follow-ups. All patients reported a high level of satisfaction with the final result both functionally and cosmetically. Conclusion: The use of computer-designed PSI enables a more accurate reconstruction of maxillofacial defects, eliminating the usual complications seen in preformed implants and resulting in higher patient satisfaction. Its main drawback is its high cost.

Keywords

References

  1. Scolozzi P, Martinez A, Jaques B (2007) Complex orbito-fronto-temporal reconstruction using computer-designed PEEK implant. J Craniofac Surg 18(1):224-228
  2. Tessier P (1982) Autogenous bone grafts taken from the calvarium for facial and cranial applications. Clin Plast Surg 9:531-538
  3. Al-Ahmari A, Nasr EA, Moiduddin K, Alkindi M, Kamrani A Patient specific mandibular implant for maxillofacial surgery using additive manufacturing. In 2015 International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management (IEOM) (pp. 1-7). IEEE.
  4. Giannoudis PV, Dinopoulos H, Tsiridis E (2005) Bone substitutes: an update. Injury 36(3):S20-S27
  5. Sbordone C, Toti P, Guidetti F, Califano L, Pannone G, Sbordone L (2014) Volumetric changes after sinus augmentation using blocks of autogenous iliac bone or freeze-dried allogeneic bone. a non-randomized study. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 42(2):113-118
  6. Powell NB, Riley RW (1989) Facial contouring with outer-table calvarial bone: a 4-year experience. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 115(12):1454-1458
  7. Honigmann P, Sharma N, Okolo B, Popp U, Msallem B, Thieringer FM (2018) Patient-specific surgical implants made of 3D printed PEEK: material, technology, and scope of surgical application. BioMed Res Int
  8. Rana M, Chui CH, Wagner M, Zimmerer R, Rana M, Gellrich NC (2015) Increasing the accuracy of orbital reconstruction with selective laser-melted patient-specific implants combined with intraoperative navigation. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 73(6):1113-1118
  9. Kim MM, Boahene KD, Byrne PJ (2009) Use of customized polyetheretherketone (PEEK) implants in the reconstruction of complex maxillofacial defects. Arch Facial Plast Surg 11(1):53-57
  10. Owusu JA, Boahene K (2015) Update of patient-specific maxillofacial implant. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 23(4):261-264
  11. Binder WJ, Kaye A (1994) Reconstruction of posttraumatic and congenital facial deformities with three-dimensional computer-assisted custom designed implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 94(6):775-785
  12. Jarvinen S, Suojanen J, Kormi E, Wilkman T, Kiukkonen A, Leikola J, Stoor P (2019) The use of patient specific polyetheretherketone implants for reconstruction of maxillofacial deformities. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 47(7): 1072-1076
  13. Kurtz SM (2012) An overview of PEEK biomaterials. In: PEEK biomaterials handbook. William Andrew Publishing:1
  14. Nieminen T, Kallela I, Wuolijoki E, Kainulainen H, Hiidenheimo I, Rantala I (2008) Amorphous and crystalline polyetheretherketone: mechanical properties and tissue reactions during a 3-year follow-up. J Biomed Mater Res A 84(2):377-383
  15. Scolozzi P (2012) Maxillofacial reconstruction using polyetheretherketone patient-specific implants by "mirroring" computational planning. Aesthet Plast Surg 36(3):660-665
  16. Alonso-Rodriguez E, Cebrian JL, Nieto MJ, Del Castillo JL, Hernandez-Godoy J, Burgueno M (2015) Polyetheretherketone custom-made implants for craniofacial defects: report of 14 cases and review of the literature. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 43(7):1232-1238
  17. Rosenthal G, Ng I, Moscovici S, Lee KK, Lay T, Martin C, Manley GT (2014) Polyetheretherketone implants for the repair of large cranial defects: a 3-center experience. Neurosurgery 75(5):523-529

Cited by

  1. Quality Characteristics and Clinical Relevance of In-House 3D-Printed Customized Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) Implants for Craniofacial Reconstruction vol.9, pp.9, 2020, https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9092818
  2. Patient-Specific Surgical Implant Using Cavity-Filled Approach for Precise and Functional Mandible Reconstruction vol.10, pp.17, 2020, https://doi.org/10.3390/app10176030
  3. Quantitative Assessment of Point-of-Care 3D-Printed Patient-Specific Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) Cranial Implants vol.22, pp.16, 2020, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms22168521
  4. A Multi-Criteria Assessment Strategy for 3D Printed Porous Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) Patient-Specific Implants for Orbital Wall Reconstruction vol.10, pp.16, 2020, https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10163563
  5. Bone Regeneration of a 3D-Printed Alloplastic and Particulate Xenogenic Graft with rhBMP-2 vol.22, pp.22, 2020, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms222212518
  6. Biomechanical comparison of locking and non-locking patient-specific mandibular reconstruction plate using finite element analysis vol.124, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2021.104849