Review of the History of Materials Used With Experience with Bone Cement Cranioplasty

Roka, Yam Bahadur

doi:10.3126/njn.v14i1.20658

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 25 publications

(27 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Y. 17 The timing of the cranioplasty following the craniectomy has been the topic of debate. The overall complication rate including the infection was not signifi cant between early and late cranioplasty in different studies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Outcome of cranioplasty after decompressive craniectomy: Algorithm based study

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cranioplasty is the next major surgical procedure that the patient undergoes following the decompressive craniotomy for severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). This study was designed with the objective to evaluate the outcome of our institutional algorithm-based protocol in the management of cranioplasty. This is aretrospective analytical study conducted in National Institute of Neurological and Allied sciences, Bansbari Kathmandu among 40 patients who underwent cranioplasty during a period of 5 years. Variables viz. postoperative CT changes, cranioplasty site infection and change in the modified Rankin scale following the cranioplasty were analyzed. Among 40 patients who underwent the cranioplasty, 82.5% were male and 17.5% were female. The age of the patients ranged from 4 to 72 years with mean of 29.5±13.13. Interval between primary decompression and cranioplasty ranged from 3 to 78 weeks. Algorithm based preoperative planning was done before cranioplasty. Previous abdominal bone fl ap preservation site infection was significantly associated (p value 0.048) with cranioplasty site infection. There was no deterioration in the MRS score. The proper evaluation of the preoperative CT scan and the combined adjunctive procedure with cranioplasty in the selected patients helps to decrease the post cranioplasty related complications.Nepal Journal of Neuroscience, Volume 15, Number 2, 2018, page: 36-40

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Outcome of cranioplasty after decompressive craniectomy: Algorithm based study

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, it was soon realised that cartilage was not mechanically strong and did not show mineralisation potential. Therefore, it was then realised that cartilage was not a suitable material for cranial bone repair [80]. In 1917, Dambrin and Sicard investigated the potential of cadaveric skull for cranial reconstruction [81]; the collected bone was treated with sodium carbonate, alcohol, xylol and ether and ultimately heat sterilised, before implantation, in order to minimise the immune response [81].…”

Section: Conventional Treatmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

3D printed composite materials for craniofacial implants: current concepts, challenges and future directions

Jindal

Manzoor

Haslam³

et al. 2020

Int J Adv Manuf Technol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Millions of craniofacial surgeries are performed annually worldwide for craniofacial bones’ replacement and augmentation. This represents a significant economic burden as well as aesthetic expectations. Autografts and allografts are the first choice for treatment of craniofacial defects; however, their limited availability and difficulty to shape have led to investigation for alternative strategies. Biomaterial-based approaches have been used for implantation as they have ample supply but their processing through conventional technologies present several drawbacks; the major one relates to the poor versatility towards the production of patient-specific implants. Additive manufacturing has gained considerable attention during the last decade, as it allows the manufacturing of implants according to patient need. Biomaterial implants can be additively manufactured but have one or more limitations of stress shielding, radiopacity, high strength to weight ratio and limited bone integration. Over the last few decades, composites are investigated to surmount the limitations with traditional implants and also improve their bone integration. This review provides an overview of the most recent polymeric composite-based biomaterials that have been used in combination with 3D printing technology for the development of patient-specific craniofacial implants. Starting with the conventional treatments, biomaterials available for the craniofacial implants, the additive manufacturing rationale are discussed. Also, the main challenges still associated with 3D printing of polymer-based composites are critically reviewed and the future perspective presented.

show abstract

“…Titanium alloys are amongst the most popular metals used in reconstructive procedures due to their high strength, biocompatibility, excellent contour, rigidity, low infection rate, favorable osseointegration property [ 7 , 8 ], and excellent marginal adaptability, which can precisely fit into the complex geometry of skull defects, especially when 3D printed with CAD/CAM. These 3D-printed prostheses also have fewer radiographic artifacts in comparison to titanium meshes [ 9 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reconstruction of the Occipital and Parietal Congenital Defect with 3D Custom-Made Titanium Prosthesis: A Case Report with Four and a Half Years of Follow-Up and a Brief Review of Literature

Mohammadi

Azari

Nikparto

et al. 2021

Case Reports in Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Management of patients with congenital skull defects requires a multidisciplinary approach. Considering the defect’s location and size, brain protection, and the cosmetic outcome makes such reconstructions challenging. Due to limited resemblance to skull contour and donor site morbidity of autogenous bone grafts, alloplastic materials are widely used for skull reconstructions. Titanium alloys have proper strength values, low infection rates, favorable osseointegration property, and excellent marginal adaptability when manufactured by computer-aided design (CAD) and computer-aided manufacturing (CAM). A 13-year-old female patient presented with congenital defects at the superior third of occipital bone and posterior thirds of the bilateral parietal bones. On CT scan, the exact size and shape of the defect were determined. Using CAD/CAM, a 3D virtual model of the prosthesis was designed and then printed with titanium alloy (TiAl6V4) via additive manufacturing method. The prosthesis was placed on the defect in a total surgery time of only 90 minutes. On 4.5 years of follow-up, the contour of the skull was ideal and the skin over the defect and neurologic status was intact. Due to their biocompatibility and rigidity, custom-made titanium prostheses are promising options for reconstructing complex skull defects.

show abstract

Review of the History of Materials Used With Experience with Bone Cement Cranioplasty

Cited by 3 publications

References 25 publications

Outcome of cranioplasty after decompressive craniectomy: Algorithm based study

Outcome of cranioplasty after decompressive craniectomy: Algorithm based study

3D printed composite materials for craniofacial implants: current concepts, challenges and future directions

Reconstruction of the Occipital and Parietal Congenital Defect with 3D Custom-Made Titanium Prosthesis: A Case Report with Four and a Half Years of Follow-Up and a Brief Review of Literature

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About