New resorbable bone fixation. Biomaterials in craniomaxillofacial surgery: Present and future

被引：3
作者：
Ashammakhi N. [1 ]
Gonzalez A.M. [2 ]
Törmälä P. [1 ]
Jackson I.T. [2 ]
机构：
[1] Institute of Biomaterials, Tampere University of Technology, Tampere
[2] Inst. of Craniofacial/Reconstr. Surg, Fisher Center, Southfield, MI 48075
来源：
European Journal of Plastic Surgery | 2004年 / 26卷 / 8期
关键词：
Craniomaxillofacial surgery; PGA; PLGA; PLLA; Resorbable materials;
D O I：
10.1007/s00238-003-0568-8
中图分类号：
学科分类号：
摘要：
Metallic implants have been extensively used for osteofixation in craniomaxillofacial surgery (CMF). Although they are mainly inert, the disadvantage of not being resorbable remains. Advances in biomaterials technology led to the development of resorbable polymers composed by monomeric units that are naturally present in the body. Among them are polylactide (PLA), polyglycolide (PGA) and their copolymers [PLGA and P(L/DL)LA]. After in-depth studies of the structure of these materials, the self-reinforced (SR) technology has merged to solve their mechanical limitations. SR is based on reinforcing elements within the same material, increasing their strength. Ultra-high strength implants were then manufactured by the SR technique. In CMF surgery, SR devices have been used for over 10 years without reported complications. As advantages, SR devices have shown to be biocompatible, reliable, easily handled, and to have favorable degradation properties. At present, copolymeric SR devices [P(L/DL)LA, BioSorb FX, and PLGA, BioSorb PDX] represent an advance in the clinical application of absorbable devices in CMF surgery. The aim of this review is to give an overall understanding of the ultimate advances in biomaterial research for CMF reconstruction, with emphasis in self-reinforced resorbable devices. We also intend to give insight into new devices, such as SR, tacks and their applicability. © Springer-Verlag 2003.
引用
收藏
页码：383 / 390
页数：7
相关论文
共 79 条
[1]  
Pietrzak W.S., Eppley B.L., Resorbable polymer fixation for craniomaxillofacial surgery: Development and engineering paradigms, J. Craniofac. Surg., 11, (2000)
[2]  
Kennady M.C., Tucker M.R., Lester G.E., Buckley M.J., Histomorphometric evaluation of stress shielding in mandibular continuity defects treated with rigid fixation plates and bone grafts, Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg., 18, (1989)
[3]  
Iizuka T., Lindqvist C., Rigid internal fixation of mandibular fractures. An analysis of 270 fractures using the AO/ASIF method, Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg., 21, (1992)
[4]  
Yaremchuk M.J., Posnick J.C., Resolving controversies related to plate and screw fixation in the growing craniofacial skeleton, J. Craniofac. Surg., 6, (1995)
[5]  
Yaremchuk M.J., Fiala T.G.S., Barker F., Ragland R., The effect of rigid fixation on craniofacial growth in rhesus monkeys, Plast. Reconstr. Surg., 93, (1994)
[6]  
Fearon J.A., Munro I.R., Bruce D., A Observations on the use of rigid fixation for craniofacial deformities in infants and young children, Plast. Reconstr. Surg., 95, (1995)
[7]  
Papay F.A., Hardy S., Morales Jr. L., Et al., False" migration of rigid fixation appliances in pediatric craniofacial surgery, J. Craniofac. Surg., 6, (1995)
[8]  
Resnick J.I., Kinney B.M., Kawamoto Jr. H.K., The effect of rigid internal fixation on cranial growth, Ann. Plast. Surg., 25, (1990)
[9]  
Anastakis D.J., Antonyshyn O.M., Cooper P.W., Et al., Computed tomography artifacts associated with craniofacial fixation devices: An experimental study, Ann. Plast. Surg., 37, (1996)
[10]  
Fiala T.G., Novelline R.A., Yaremchuk M.J., Comparison of CT imaging artifacts from craniomaxillofacial internal fixation devices, Plast. Reconstr. Surg., 92, (1993)
12345678