Biomaterials in craniofacial surgery: experimental studies and clinical application.

Harvey Chim, Arun K. Gosain

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

The increasing variety of biomaterials available to the craniofacial surgeon today, with advantages of "off-the-shelf availability" and lack of donor-site morbidity, provides a formidable armamentarium for applications in reconstruction and augmentation. Although biomaterials are invaluable alternatives to autogenous bone graft, there is lack of uniformity in clinical application. In this article, we review our experience with the use of hydroxyapatite derivatives in animal studies and subsequently discuss our experience with the use of 3 classes of biomaterials (cement pastes, osteoactive biomaterials, and prefabricated polymers) for craniofacial reconstruction. We subsequently offer guidelines to dictate the choice of biomaterials for different applications, based on the site of reconstruction (onlay versus inlay reconstruction) and skeletal maturity.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)29-33
Number of pages5
JournalThe Journal of craniofacial surgery
Volume20
Issue number1
StatePublished - Jan 2009
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Biocompatible Materials
Inlays
Hydroxyapatites
Ointments
Polymers
Clinical Studies
Tissue Donors
Guidelines
Morbidity
Transplants
Bone and Bones

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Biomaterials in craniofacial surgery : experimental studies and clinical application. / Chim, Harvey; Gosain, Arun K.

In: The Journal of craniofacial surgery, Vol. 20, No. 1, 01.2009, p. 29-33.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{35d2a213900a405d82711cca5e60ac9a,
title = "Biomaterials in craniofacial surgery: experimental studies and clinical application.",
abstract = "The increasing variety of biomaterials available to the craniofacial surgeon today, with advantages of {"}off-the-shelf availability{"} and lack of donor-site morbidity, provides a formidable armamentarium for applications in reconstruction and augmentation. Although biomaterials are invaluable alternatives to autogenous bone graft, there is lack of uniformity in clinical application. In this article, we review our experience with the use of hydroxyapatite derivatives in animal studies and subsequently discuss our experience with the use of 3 classes of biomaterials (cement pastes, osteoactive biomaterials, and prefabricated polymers) for craniofacial reconstruction. We subsequently offer guidelines to dictate the choice of biomaterials for different applications, based on the site of reconstruction (onlay versus inlay reconstruction) and skeletal maturity.",
author = "Harvey Chim and Gosain, {Arun K.}",
year = "2009",
month = "1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "20",
pages = "29--33",
journal = "Journal of Craniofacial Surgery",
issn = "1049-2275",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Biomaterials in craniofacial surgery

T2 - experimental studies and clinical application.

AU - Chim, Harvey

AU - Gosain, Arun K.

PY - 2009/1

Y1 - 2009/1

N2 - The increasing variety of biomaterials available to the craniofacial surgeon today, with advantages of "off-the-shelf availability" and lack of donor-site morbidity, provides a formidable armamentarium for applications in reconstruction and augmentation. Although biomaterials are invaluable alternatives to autogenous bone graft, there is lack of uniformity in clinical application. In this article, we review our experience with the use of hydroxyapatite derivatives in animal studies and subsequently discuss our experience with the use of 3 classes of biomaterials (cement pastes, osteoactive biomaterials, and prefabricated polymers) for craniofacial reconstruction. We subsequently offer guidelines to dictate the choice of biomaterials for different applications, based on the site of reconstruction (onlay versus inlay reconstruction) and skeletal maturity.

AB - The increasing variety of biomaterials available to the craniofacial surgeon today, with advantages of "off-the-shelf availability" and lack of donor-site morbidity, provides a formidable armamentarium for applications in reconstruction and augmentation. Although biomaterials are invaluable alternatives to autogenous bone graft, there is lack of uniformity in clinical application. In this article, we review our experience with the use of hydroxyapatite derivatives in animal studies and subsequently discuss our experience with the use of 3 classes of biomaterials (cement pastes, osteoactive biomaterials, and prefabricated polymers) for craniofacial reconstruction. We subsequently offer guidelines to dictate the choice of biomaterials for different applications, based on the site of reconstruction (onlay versus inlay reconstruction) and skeletal maturity.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=65449130867&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=65449130867&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 19164984

VL - 20

SP - 29

EP - 33

JO - Journal of Craniofacial Surgery

JF - Journal of Craniofacial Surgery

SN - 1049-2275

IS - 1

ER -