Contralateral coronoid process bone grafts for orbital floor reconstruction: An anatomic and clinical study

Mintz, Sheldon; Ettinger, Anna; Schmakel, Timothy; Gleason, Michael

doi:10.1016/s0278-2391(98)90755-8

Cited by 64 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Management of orbital fractures, whether pure blowout fractures or components of associated zygomatic bone fractures, is a challenging problem for the oral and maxillofacial surgeon. Their reconstruction requires (1) release of herniated orbital contents, (2) avoidance of enophthalmos, diplopia, and dystopia, (3) return of physiologic function of the extraocular muscles, and (4) an effective barrier against infection from the antrum [3]. Discussion is still ongoing for the choice of material for reconstruction and filling-in the defect of the orbital floor, especially that various autogenous and synthetic materials have been introduced for this reconstruction.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The desirable characteristics of a bone graft are sufficient volume, minimal donor-site morbidity, obtaining intramembranous bone with high cortical component, proximity to the recipient site, and ease of harvesting and achieving of reproducible and good results, and minimal resorption rate [2,7,13]. However, use of autogenous bone graft requires a second surgical site in an already traumatized patient [3].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The choice of a particular source is dependent on several factors. These include surgical access, the size of the defect to be repaired, donor site morbidity, and the quality and quantity of available bone [3].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Comparison of Efficacy of Mandible and Iliac Bone as Autogenous Bone Graft for Orbital Floor Reconstruction

Garg¹,

Giraddi

Roy³

2014

J. Maxillofac. Oral Surg.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective This study evaluated and compared the efficacy of mandible and iliac bone as autogenous bone graft for correction of orbital floor fractures. Patients and Methods Twenty patients who suffered orbital floor fractures took part in the study. The subjects enrolled in the study sustained both isolated orbital floor fracture and orbital floor fracture associated with fracture of zygomatico-maxillary complex. Each inferior orbital wall was reconstructed using either a mandible bone graft or an iliac graft. Mandibular symphysis was opted as a donor site for graft harvest from mandible and anterior iliac crest for the iliac group. CT scans were taken before the operation. Inclusion criteria consisted of at least 2 months postsurgical follow-up, pre-and post-surgical photographic documentation, and complete medical records regarding inpatient and outpatient data. To describe the distribution of complications and facilitate statistical analysis, we categorized our findings into diplopia, enophthalmos, and restriction of ocular movements before and after treatment.We also considered the time required for the harvest of the grafts and the donor site complications. A comparative study was carried out using Chi square test and student t test. We considered P value \0.05 to be statistically significant. Results Ten iliac crest grafts and ten mandible bone grafts were placed. The mean age of the patients was 33.1 years. 80 % of the patients were males. The most common complication of orbital floor fracture was diplopia, followed by enophthalmos and restriction of ocular movements. The post operative results were compared after 2 months of the surgery. In iliac crest group, diplopia got corrected in six out of seven patients (85 %), enophthalmos in four out of five patients (80 %) and restricted ocular movement showed 100 % correction. While in mandible group, diplopia and ocular movement showed 100 % correction and enophthalmos got corrected in five out of six patients (83 %). No statistically significant differences were found between the two groups on comparing these variables. On the other hand the mean time required for the harvest of iliac graft and mandible graft was 30.2 ± 3.52 min and 16.8 ± 1.75 min respectively. The difference was statistically significant. Conclusion There is no difference in the ability of mandible and anterior iliac crest bone grafts to correct posttraumatic diplopia, enophthalmos and restricted ocular movements. But the time and ease of harvest of the graft from mandible was comparatively less and easy especially when the treating doctor was an oral and maxillofacial surgeon. Secondly the post-operative morbidity was low and the quality and contour of the bone graft was very adaptable for the reconstruction of the orbital floor.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of Efficacy of Mandible and Iliac Bone as Autogenous Bone Graft for Orbital Floor Reconstruction

Garg¹,

Giraddi

Roy³

2014

J. Maxillofac. Oral Surg.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Bone grafts have regained the favour of many craniofacial surgeons due, in part, to their biocompatibility. Donor sites include the split calvarial bone graft, rib, maxillary wall, mandibular symphysis, iliac crest, antral bone and coronoid process (1,(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11). The grafts can be placed as onlay grafts (12), fixated with a plate and screw (13), fixated with a lag screw or fixated in conjunction with an alloplastic material, such as titanium mesh or porous polyethylene sheets (14,15) (Figures 1-5).…”

Section: Autologous Materialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A review of materials currently used in orbital floor reconstruction

Mok¹

2004

J Plast Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Orbital fractures are common fractures of the midface. As such, numerous techniques and materials exist for the repair of this region, each with inherent advantages and disadvantages. But does the ideal implant material exist? Should we stop and simply use readily available materials, or should the cycle of need and discovery continue? A comprehensive review of materials used in orbital reconstruction and possible new directions in orbital floor reconstruction are presented.

show abstract

“…A local bone graft from Coronoid process of mandible can be used as it can be harvested easily, with minimal morbidity and no cutaneous scarring as bone is harvested intraorally. A Coronoid process graft can be used for alveolar defects repair, orbital floor repair, maxillary augmentation, repair of non-union fracture of mandible 5 . These grafts can be widely used in the reconstruction of osseous defects in oral and maxilla-facial region.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Untitled

2017

IJPSR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background:The coronoid process of mandible is thin flat triangular process from the ramus of the mandible. This varies in the shapes and size. It gives attachment to two main muscles that is temporalis and masseter muscle. The coronoid process is the favourable donor site. A Coronoid process graft can be used for alveolar defects repair, orbital floor repair, maxillary augmentation, repair of non-union fracture of mandible. These grafts can be widely used in the reconstruction of osseous defects in oral and maxilla-facial region. Aim of the Study: This study is done to find out the variation in shape of coronoid process of mandible, Intercoronoid distance, coronoid-condylar distance and the length and breadth and thickness of the coronoid process of mandible. Methods: The study was done on the 100 dry human mandibles from the osteology bank of Saveetha medical college and hospital. The distance was measured using the digital vernier callipers and the values were analysed. Results: This study is useful for the maxillofacial surgeon and this useful for determining the buccal vestibule during denture fabrication and helps us to understand the angle and extent opening of the mouth. INTRODUCTION:The mandible is the largest, strongest bone of the facial skeleton and it is the second bone in the body to ossify. It has a horizontally curved body and two vertically placed rami that ascend in the posterior aspect. The rami bear the coronoid and the condylar process. The coronoid process projects upwards and slightly forwards as a triangular plate of bone. Its posterior border bounds the mandibular incisures and its anterior border continues into that of the ramus.

show abstract

Contralateral coronoid process bone grafts for orbital floor reconstruction: An anatomic and clinical study

Cited by 64 publications

References 16 publications

Comparison of Efficacy of Mandible and Iliac Bone as Autogenous Bone Graft for Orbital Floor Reconstruction

Comparison of Efficacy of Mandible and Iliac Bone as Autogenous Bone Graft for Orbital Floor Reconstruction

A review of materials currently used in orbital floor reconstruction

Untitled

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About