2010
DOI: 10.1016/j.bjps.2009.06.003
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Craniofacial reconstruction with bone and biomaterials: Review over the last 11 years

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

4
167
0
4

Year Published

2010
2010
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 215 publications
(175 citation statements)
references
References 83 publications
4
167
0
4
Order By: Relevance
“…This would allow for better results in terms of contour and symmetry, which are of vital importance in craniofacial reconstruction and a drawback of traditional methods. Besides, complications such as postoperative implant displacement, infections and implant exposure could be potentially reduced 6 . On other advantage would be the reduction of operative time, since time consuming intraoperative modeling would not be necessary 17 .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…This would allow for better results in terms of contour and symmetry, which are of vital importance in craniofacial reconstruction and a drawback of traditional methods. Besides, complications such as postoperative implant displacement, infections and implant exposure could be potentially reduced 6 . On other advantage would be the reduction of operative time, since time consuming intraoperative modeling would not be necessary 17 .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Their biocompatibility has been extensively demonstrated, especially related to bone, both experimentally [2][3][4][5] and clinically [6][7][8][9] with variable implant designs and methods of construction.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This will ensure that mechanical stability and metabolic function are maintained at the defect site and minimise the risk of failure from infection [2,3]. Over recent years, an increasing number of synthetic bone substitutes have become clinically available as alternatives to traditional graft materials [4,5]. Despite this, clinicians preferentially choose autologous bone graft, as synthetic alternatives still fail to match their in vivo performance [6,7].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, the primary treatment and closure of large-area bone defects continues to face major technical challenges. The gold standard for craniomaxillofacial (CMF) reconstruction, segmental bone defects, and spine fusion is currently autograft transplantation, which is hampered by the limited supply of donor bone and the potential for considerable donor site morbidity associated with the tissue harvest (2). There is a compelling need for an off-the-shelf device to manage many types of bone defects.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%