The Use of Piezosurgery in Genioplasty

Rullo, Rosario; Festa, Vincenzo Maria; Rullo, Francesco; Trosino, Oreste; Cerone, Vincenzo; Gasparro, Roberta; Laino, Luigi; Sammartino, Gilberto

doi:10.1097/scs.0000000000002473

Cited by 16 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Our results consider that genioplasty with alloplastic grafting is less immediate postsurgical and long term morbidity in same line with agreement of other results of Rullo, et al (22) and Peter, (23) who concluded that genioplasty with piezotome decrease the post operative morbidity and enhances the long termpatient satisfaction.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Clinical Evaluation of Genioplasty With Either Silastic (Solid Silicone) and Medpor (Porous Polyethylene) as Chin Alloplastic Augmentation

Abdelmabood

Abdullah²,

Amer³

2022

Egyptian Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose of the study: our study was to assess the clinical outcome of both Silastic and Medpor as chin alloplastic augmentation procedures. Material and Methods:This randomized clinical study was performed on ten patients with retruded chin with a mean age of 25 years, out of whom 6 received silastic chin implant and 4 received Medpor chin implant. The primary clinical outcome variable was patient satisfaction after application of silastic or medpor chin graft depending on Genioplasty Outcome Evaluation (GOE). Other variables in this study were surgical time, postoperative pain score, and postoperative chin edema.Results: Ten patients underwent the protocol of the study .They were 5 males and 5 females. 6 patients received a Silastic Chin graft and 4 patients received a Medpor Chin Graft The Overall patient satisfaction outcome and GOE, data were recorded pre-surgical and at 6 months with the postoperative follow-up. The presurgical GOE score for all patients who received Silastic Chin Graft 35.19±8.7 and Medpor Chin Graft were 33.17±9.0. GOE after 6 months were 74.56±7.2 for patients who received Silastic Chin Graft and 76.66±8.2 for patients who received Medpor Chin Graft (P-value = 0.0001).Conclusions: Both Silastic and Medpor alloplastic chin implants can be used as a simple technique of chin augmentation in moderate chin retrusion. All the patients in the study showed significant improvement in chin profile with a high degree of satisfaction according to Genioplasty Outcome Evaluation (GOE).

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Clinical Evaluation of Genioplasty With Either Silastic (Solid Silicone) and Medpor (Porous Polyethylene) as Chin Alloplastic Augmentation

Abdelmabood

Abdullah²,

Amer³

2022

Egyptian Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The bone blocks provided in cubic or parallelepiped shape do not usually match the three-dimensionality of the bone defects, resulting in the necessity to model the blocks [32].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative Investigation of Cutting Devices on Bone Blocks: An SEM Morphological Analysis

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Bone regeneration is a reliable technique when the bone volume is insufficient to provide a functional and aesthetic outcome in surgery and implantoprosthesis procedures. When bone blocks are used but do not match the shape of the defect, the block must be adapted. The aim of our research was to evaluate, by Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) morphological observation, how different cutting devices modify the bone surface. Method: Four equine bone blocks were divided into 15 cubic shape samples with ultrasonic and sonic tips, as well as diamond, tungsten carbide, and Lindemann burs. The uncut surface of the obtained bone block was used as a control. Two observers independently analyzed the SEM observation recording, including cut precision, depth of incision, thermal damages, and presence of bone debris. For each group, sharpness, depth, carbonization, and bone debris were expressed as mean values. Results: The osteotomy performed with an ultrasonic tip shows the best results, preserving the bone morphology in both quantitative and qualitative analyses. The bone surface appeared sufficiently clean from debris and showed a reduced presence of carbonization. Conclusion: The shaping of the bone block as in vivo osteotomy respects the bone morphology and allows it to achieve the relevant biological and clinical outcome.

show abstract

“…5). All three studies evaluated using the methodologic index for nonrandomized studies instrument were considered of high quality, 30,39,40 whereas four studies were evaluated using the Cochrane instrument. 17,24,35,38…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Piezosurgery versus Conventional Cutting Techniques in Craniofacial Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

McGuire

Boudreau

Prabhu

et al. 2021

Plastic &Amp; Reconstructive Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As the field of craniofacial surgery has advanced, the need for novel techniques to improve safety and patient outcomes has grown considerably. Historically, clinicians have relied on mechanical chisels, oscillating saws, and rotating burrs to perform osteotomies. 1 Although able to successfully cut bone, these techniques have the potential pitfalls of increased risk of osteonecrosis, impaired bone regeneration, and more. 1,2 To prevent the morbidity associated with conventional bone-cutting modalities, Vercellotti 3 introduced piezosurgery in 1988. Piezosurgery is a bone-cutting technique that takes advantage of electrical current that moves ceramics inside a device that then leads to ultrasonic oscillation of a vibrating insert that is applied to bone. The bone is broken down and suctioned from the surgical area to decrease heat generation and prevent mechanical injury. 4,5 The characteristics of the piezosurgery microvibrations allow for precise cutting of mineralized structures and prevent damaging underlying soft tissue and vasculature. 3 This increased precision can lead to not only better surgical outcomes but also improved cosmesis as well because of decreased bleeding and

show abstract

The Use of Piezosurgery in Genioplasty

Cited by 16 publications

References 5 publications

Clinical Evaluation of Genioplasty With Either Silastic (Solid Silicone) and Medpor (Porous Polyethylene) as Chin Alloplastic Augmentation

Clinical Evaluation of Genioplasty With Either Silastic (Solid Silicone) and Medpor (Porous Polyethylene) as Chin Alloplastic Augmentation

Comparative Investigation of Cutting Devices on Bone Blocks: An SEM Morphological Analysis

Piezosurgery versus Conventional Cutting Techniques in Craniofacial Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About