Interim reconstruction and space maintenance of mandibular continuity defects preceding definitive osseous reconstruction

Reconstruction of Defect after Treatment of Bisphosphonate-related Osteonecrois of the Jaw with Staged Iliac Bone Graft

“…Moreover, surgeons can reassess the esthetic result of reconstructive plan. On the other hand, there are disadvantages of re-approaching the surgical site, with scarring and loss of space to accommodate a reconstruction [ 18 , 19 ]. In this case, the overdenture was delivered after placement of two implants on the mandible.…”

New technique for endoscopically-assisted particulate graft reconstruction of the mandible

“…Two patients with ameloblastomas of the body of the mandible were treated as we have described previously. 6 In each, we resected the tumour through an intraoral approach and placed a customised reconstruction plate, to which a silicone spacer had been secured with stainless steel wires ( Fig. 1).…”

“…It also improves the final volume of the ossicle by creating a space for implantation in which the wound has already contracted. 6 While mandibular reconstruction requires extraoral exposure of the recipient bed, a further benefit of using a spacer during resection is that much smaller incisions are necessary for its removal, the debridement of the bony interface with endoscopic assistance, and the implantation of particulate grafts.…”

Ultrasonic Welded Resorbable Mesh (SonicWeld Rx System) in Reconstruction of Segmental Mandibular Defects: Technical Note and Report of 2 Cases

“…1,9 Therefore, nonvascularized bone grafts still play a major role in the reconstruction of segmental mandibulectomy defects resulting from resection of benign disease, infections (ie, osteomyelitis), and trauma with the stipulation of there being adequate soft tissue coverage of the nonvascularized bone graft. 1,10,11 Nonvascularized bone grafts for mandibular reconstruction offer the following advantages over free tissue transfer with microvascular anastomosis: 1) decreased intraoperative time, 2) decreased length of hospital stay, 3) decreased donor-site morbidity, 4) less sensitivity to technique, and 5) in select cases a more optimal reconstruction for dental implant prosthetic rehabilitation. However, although this option seems better tolerated by the patient and is less involved for the reconstructive surgeon, it is fraught with lack of predictability.…”