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.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
