Facial Bone Reconstruction Using both Marine or Non-Marine Bone Substitutes: Evaluation of Current Outcomes in a Systematic Literature Review.

Marco Cicciù,Alan Herford,Giuseppe Troiano,Fausto Famà,Ennio Bramanti,Luigi Laino,Sergio Sambataro,Luca Fiorillo,Floriana Lauritano,Gabriele Cervino

doi:10.3390/md16010027

Abstract

The aim of the present investigation was to systematically analyse the literature on the facial bone reconstruction defect using marine collagen or not and to evaluate a predictable treatment for their clinical management. The revision has been performed by searched MEDLINE and EMBASE databases from 2007 to 2017. Clinical trials and animal in vitro studies that had reported the application of bone substitutes or not for bone reconstruction defect and using marine collagen or other bone substitute material were recorded following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The first selection involved 1201 citations. After screening and evaluation of suitability, 39 articles were added at the revision process. Numerous discrepancies among the papers about bone defects morphology, surgical protocols, and selection of biomaterials were found. All selected manuscripts considered the final clinical success after the facial bone reconstruction applying bone substitutes. However, the scientific evidence regarding the vantage of the appliance of a biomaterial versus autologous bone still remains debated. Marine collagen seems to favor the dimensional stability of the graft and it could be an excellent carrier for growth factors.

Highlights

The management of large facial bone defects is a current challenge for clinicians and surgeons.Treatment success is frequently related to the size of the defect, the quality of the soft tissue covering the defect, the decision of reconstructive method and the choice of the grafted material [1,2,3].Numerous bone grafts’ regenerative procedures are currently available for having complete regenerative processes after bone trauma, or for favoring healing between two bones across a diseased joint, and for obtaining new clinical function or aesthetic on site affected by disease, infection, or resection [2,3,4,5].Mar
A protocol including the investigation methods and the inclusion criteria for the current revision was submitted in advance and documented on the Center for Review and Dissemination (CRD) York website PROSPERO, an international prospective register of systematic reviews
The results indicate how the platelet rich plasma (PRP) associated with the bovine-derived xenograft in the small bone defect can favor the bone healing [40]

Summary

Introduction

The management of large facial bone defects is a current challenge for clinicians and surgeons.Treatment success is frequently related to the size of the defect, the quality of the soft tissue covering the defect, the decision of reconstructive method and the choice of the grafted material [1,2,3].Numerous bone grafts’ regenerative procedures are currently available for having complete regenerative processes after bone trauma, or for favoring healing between two bones across a diseased joint, and for obtaining new clinical function or aesthetic on site affected by disease, infection, or resection [2,3,4,5].Mar. The management of large facial bone defects is a current challenge for clinicians and surgeons. Treatment success is frequently related to the size of the defect, the quality of the soft tissue covering the defect, the decision of reconstructive method and the choice of the grafted material [1,2,3]. Numerous bone grafts’ regenerative procedures are currently available for having complete regenerative processes after bone trauma, or for favoring healing between two bones across a diseased joint, and for obtaining new clinical function or aesthetic on site affected by disease, infection, or resection [2,3,4,5]. Mar. Drugs 2018, 16, 27; doi:10.3390/md16010027 www.mdpi.com/journal/marinedrugs.

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion