medigraphic.com
ISSN 2007-4360 (Print)
Asociación Mexicana de Periodontología, Colegio de Periodoncistas A.C

2014, Number 3

<< Back Next >>

Rev Mex Periodontol 2014; 5 (3)

Grafting of the tibia

Ongay SE, Morales TB, Fandiño TLA, Montes de Oca ZA

Language: Spanish
References: 20
Page: 106-112
PDF size: 405.26 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Background: In the most common techniques of regeneration (guided bone regeneration, bone distraction and grafting), due to its biological mechanism, autogenous bone alone or combined is the gold standard for grafting. This is due its osteogenic potential derived from osteoblasts precursor cells contained transplanted bone. The graft of the tibia is a good surgical option since contains a suitable quantity of bone marrow with abundant number of viable cells; it shows discret sequels and provides a great survival of transplanted bone. Objective: To present in a clinical case, the effectiveness of the graft of tibia in an alveolar bone defects greater than 2 cm, with good clinical results considering its osteogenic properties and low secondary morbidity. Case report: Female patient 50 years-old, with class III of Seibert bone defect in an area of 46 and 47, in which is placed a graft from tibia, for posterior placement of 2 implants. At the surgical procedure two maxillofacial surgeons participated, one to obtain the graft and take care of the donor area and the other for the graft placement. Results: At six months, it was clinically observed a vertical gain of approximately 5 mm. Through a tomography assessment, it was reported an increase of the alveolar ridge at the 46 area of 6.2 mm, whereas at 47 was 9 mm. The sequels were not other than pressure in the area of the tibia during the first postoperative week and a slight darkening of skin surrounding the wound. Conclusion: The graft of tibia is an outpatient with many advantages, as it is the fact of containing a vast amount of cancellous bone, ensuring greater acceptance of the graft and low morbidity companion in patients. Complications reported are ecchymosis and post-operative pain and scarring in the long run.


REFERENCES

  1. Atwood DA. Reduction of residual ridges: a major oral disease entity. J Prosthet Dent. 1971; 26: 266-279.

  2. Atwood DA, Coy WA. Clinical, cephalometric, and densitometric study of reduction of residual ridges. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 1971; 26: 280-295.

  3. Romero RJF, Reyes VJO. Injertos óseos: revisión bibliográfica. Med Oral. II: 2000; II (4): 114-118.

  4. McAllister BS, Haghighat K. Bone augmentation techniques. J Periodontol. 2007; 78 (3): 377-396.

  5. Tolman DE. Reconstructive procedures with endosseous implants in grafted bone: a review of the literature. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1995; 10: 275-294.

  6. Zouhary K. Bone graft harvesting from distant sites: concepts and techniques. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am. 2010; 22: 301-316.

  7. Crespi R, Mariani E, Benasciutti E, Capparè P, Cenci S, Gherlone E. Magnesium-enriched hydroxyapatite versus autologous bone in maxillary sinus grafting: combining histomorphometry with osteoblast gene expression profiles ex vivo. J Periodontol. 2009; 80: 586-593.

  8. Seibert JS. Reconstruction of deformed, partially edentulous ridges, using full thickness onlay grafts. Part I. Technique and wound healing. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 1983; 4: 437-453.

  9. Clavero J, Lundgren S. Ramus or chin grafts for maxillary sinus inlay and local onlay augmentation: comparison of donor site morbidity and complications. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2003; 5: 154-160.

  10. Misch CM. Comparison of intraoral donor sites for onlay grafting prior to implant placement. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1997; 12: 767-776.

  11. Elena de V, Domínguez M. Distracción ósea vs Injerto en bloque. Gaceta Dental. 2011; 226: 84-99.

  12. Hammack BL, Enneking WF. Comparative vascularization of autogenous and homogenous bone transplants. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1960; 42: 811-817.

  13. Enneking WF, Eady JL, Burchardt H. Autogenous cortical bone grafts in the reconstruction of segmental skeletal defects. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1980; 62: 1039-1058.

  14. Fu JH, Wang HL. Horizontal bone augmentation: the decision tree. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2011; 31 (4): 429-436.

  15. Chen YC, Chen CH, Chen PL. Donor site morbidity after harvesting of proximal tibia bone. Head Neck. 2006; 28(6): 496-500.

  16. Anuradha Navaneetham, Jeevan A Chokanda, Shweta Bhatnagar. Reconstruction of post-traumatic anterior maxillary osseous deficits, using corticocancellous tibial graft in preparation for implant rehabilitation. International Journal of Oral Implantology and Clinical Research. 2011; 2 (1): 25-29.

  17. Gupta A, Shah N, Patel T, Grauer J. Perioperative and long-term complications of Iliac crest bone graft harvesting for spinal surgery: a quantitative review of the literature. Int Med J. 2001; 8: 163-166.

  18. Jakse N, Seibert FJ, Lorenzoni M, Eskici A, Pertl C. A modified technique of harvesting tibial cancellous bone and its use for sinus grafting. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2001; 12: 488-494.

  19. Clavero A, Clavero B. Regeneración del proceso alveolar: injertos óseos, Revista Española de Cirugía Oral y Maxilofacial, 2002; 24: 285-297.

  20. Proussaefs P, Lozada J. The use of ramus autogenous block grafts for vertical alveolar ridge augmentation and implant placement: a pilot study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2002; 17: 238-248.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com