medigraphic.com
ISSN 2992-8559 (Electronic)
ISSN 1405-0625 (Print)

2009, Number 1-3

<< Back Next >>

Cir Plast 2009; 19 (1-3)

Different applications of alloplastic implants developed in methylmethacrylate and silicone

Echevarría PE, Priego BRB, Díaz ACM, Malpica SEB, Del Vecchyo CC

Language: Spanish
References: 15
Page: 51-56
PDF size: 337.55 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Alloplastic implants can be defined as the prosthetic replacement in the absence of bone continuity causing a defect or deformity of the skull or long bones of multiple etiologies. Reconstruction techniques bring together different disciplines involved in: the diagnosis, treatment and reconstruction plan including the development of new materials known as biocompatible. We present the experience gained in 8 years in different anatomical areas using methylmethacrylate and silicone implants, as an alternative to rebuilding in the absence of bone continuity, volume decrease of facial tissues and organs absence, describing the technique for the design, development, sterilization and prosthetic inclusion.


REFERENCES

  1. Sanan A, Haines S. Repairing hole in the head: a history of cranioplasty. Neurosurgery 1997; 40: 588-603.

  2. Zubillaga I, Sánchez G, Montalvo J. Reconstrucción craneal con biomateriales. Revisión histórica y estado actual. Rev Esp Cir Oral y Maxilofacial 2007; 29(2): 79-89.

  3. Chalian V, Drane J, Standish M. Maxillofacial Prosthetics, multidisciplinary practice. Baltimore: William & Wilkins 1971: pp. 330-350.

  4. T rigo J, Trigo G. Prótesis restauratriz maxilofacial. Ed. Mundi SAICF 1987: pp 147-155.

  5. R eyes A. Prótesis testiculares, modelo experimental. Trabajo terminal para la especialidad de Prótesis Maxilofacial. Hospital General de México, S.S. 1991 Clave: Dic/90/cex/105/0/01/09.

  6. Blocksma R, Braley S. Materiales de implantación. En: Grabb WC, Smith JW. Cirugía Plástica. Barcelona: Salvat 3ª Ed. 1984: pp. 93-110.

  7. Kuttenberger J, Hardt N. Long-term results following reconstruction of craniofacial defects with titanium micro-mesh system. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2001; 29: 75-81.

  8. Janecka I. New reconstructive technologies in skull base surgery. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2000; 126: 396-401.

  9. Manson P, Crawley W, Hoope J. Frontal cranioplasty: risk factor and choice of cranial vault reconstructive material. Plast Reconstr Surg 1986; 77: 888.

  10. D ean D et al. Osseo integration of preformed polymethylmethacrylate craniofacial prostheses coated with bone marrow impregnated poly foam. Plast Reconstr Surg 1999; 104: 705-712.

  11. Hollier L, Stal S. The use of hydroxyapatite cements in craniofacial surgery. Clin Plast Surg 2004; 31: 423-8.

  12. Gosain A et al. A 1 year study of osseo induction in hydroxyapatite derived biomaterials in an adult sheep model: part II. Plast Reconstr Sur 2004; 114: 1155-63.

  13. R odríguez C, López I, Sierra A, Mayo J. Metodología para la manufactura de implantes craneales a partir de imágenes DICOM y tecnologías CAD/CAM/CNC. Ingeniería y Ciencia, ISSN 1794-9165. 2005; Vol. 1, 2: 53-66.

  14. Arriaga E, Echevarría E. Implantes realizados en el Servicio dePrótesis Maxilofacial del Hospital General de México. Trabajo terminal para obtener la especialización. 1996.

  15. D íaz M. Implantes craneales de metilmetacrilato termocurable. Tesis dic/92/icl/01/37: Hospital General de México 1992.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com