Home > Journals > Minerva Chirurgica > Past Issues > Minerva Chirurgica 2002 June;57(3) > Minerva Chirurgica 2002 June;57(3):283-8





A Journal on Surgery

Indexed/Abstracted in: EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch), Scopus
Impact Factor 0,877




Minerva Chirurgica 2002 June;57(3):283-8

language: English, Italian

Evaluation of homologous bone graft versus biomaterials in the aesthetic restoration of the middle third of the face

Carboni A., Gasparini G., Perugini M., Renzi G., Matteini C., Becelli R.


Background. Bone deficits of the midface can be observed following tumor surgery, facial traumas or malformations, and can determine aesthetic deformities requiring surgical corrections. The goal of this study is to illustrate the 23 years experience of the Maxillo-Facial Department of the ''La Sapienza'' University of Rome, in surgical correction of middle third bone loss for aesthetic improvement, and to compare postsurgical results from the use of biomaterials and homologous bone grafts.
Methods. From January 1977 to January 2000, 18 patients were surgically treated with bone grafts for bone deficit of the midface requiring aesthetic improvements, and 23 received biomaterial placement in the same district. A retrospective analysis regarding aesthetic improvements following corrective (reconstructive) surgery was carried out in order to compare long-term results obtained with bone grafts and biomaterials.
Results. Of the 19 implants of the zygomatic bone, 1 patient suffered from infection, observ-ed on the 8th day, following iliac bone graft in the maxillary area. Of the 32 prostheses, 7 became infected and in 1 case the material became exposed: Proplast® became infected 2 times, Gore-tex® 3 times and 1 time became exposed; 2 of the 24 Medpor® implants resulted in infection. The employment of bone graft obtained a good short term aesthetic result. Medpor® employment, was evaluated as an optimal aesthetic improvement. We cannot evaluate the results obtained with Gore-tex® and Proplast® because of the few cases treated. Anyway we consider unsatisfactory the corrections obtained with these 2 materials.
Conclusions. Homologous bone grafts are still considered as the best choice when a further fixture positioning is planned for prosthetic rehabilitation of the alveolar ridge of the upper jaw or mandible. At the present time, some biomaterials are the definitive solution for restoring facial harmony in the 3 spatial dimensions.

top of page

Publication History

Cite this article as

Corresponding author e-mail