Journal of Artificial Organs

, 11:171 | Cite as

Clinical application of artificial bone in the maxillofacial region

  • Hideto Saijo
  • Ung-il Chung
  • Kazuyo Igawa
  • Yoshiyuki Mori
  • Daichi Chikazu
  • Mitsuyoshi Iino
  • Tsuyoshi Takato
Review Paper

Abstract

Hard tissue reconstruction is very useful for bony defects of the maxillofacial region. Autogenous bone, allogeneic bone, and artificial bone have been used to reconstruct maxillofacial bone; however, the use of autogenous bone involves high surgical invasiveness because of the need to harvest the bone. The use of allogeneic bone is associated with infections, raises ethical concerns, and is not widely used in Japan. Artificial bone has several advantages, including no need for bone harvesting, excellent biocompatibility, and a relatively easy surgical procedure. Use of artificial bone avoids the much greater invasiveness of harvesting bone, and several types of artificial bone have been developed. Design requirements for artificial bone include surgical manipulability, structural compatibility with the defective area, support properties, and the ability to induce bone regeneration; however, no artificial bone meeting all these requirements has yet been developed. Artificial bone is used in many patients in our medical center, and we have been active in developing the next generation of artificial bone with better properties. In this article, we present a case history and discuss the future development of artificial bone for use in maxillofacial reconstruction.

Key words

Custom-made artificial bone Maxillofacial reconstruction 3D model 

References

  1. 1.
    Tessier P, Kawamoto H, Matthews D, Posnick J, Raulo Y, Tulasne JF, Wolfe SA. Autogenous bone grafts and bone substitutes — tools and techniques: I. A 20 000-case experience in maxillofacial and craniofacial surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 2005;116:6S–24SPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Eppley BL. Craniofacial reconstruction with computer-generated HTR patient-matched implants: use in primary bone tumor excision. J Craniofac Surg 2002;13:650–657PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Eppley BL. Hydroxyapatite cranioplasty: I. Experimental results from a new quick-setting material. J Craniofac Surg 2003;14:85–88PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nakagawa A, Matsuya S, Takeuchi A, Ishikawa K. Comparison of the effects of added alpha- and beta-tricalcium phosphate on the basic properties of apatite cement. Dent Mater J 2007;26:342–347PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Song Y, Feng Z, Wang T. In situ study on the curing process of calcium phosphate bone cement. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2007;18:1185–1193PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Giannoudis PV, Dinopoulos H, Tsiridis E. Bone substitutes: an update. Injury 2005;36:S20–S27PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mastrogiacomo M, Muraglia A, Komlev V, Peyrin F, Rustichelli F, Crovace A, Cancedda R. Tissue engineering of bone: search for a better scaffold. Orthod Craniofac Res 2005;8:277–284PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hallman M, Lundgren S, Sennerby L. Histologic analysis of clinical biopsies taken 6 months and 3 years after maxillary sinus floor augmentation with 80% bovine hydroxyapatite and 20% autogenous bone mixed with fibrin glue. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2001;3:87–96PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pretorius JA, Melsen B, Nel JC, Germishuys PJ. A histomorphometric evaluation of factors influencing the healing of bony defects surrounding implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2005;20:387–398PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Eppley BL. Craniofacial reconstruction with computer-generated HTR patient-matched implants: use in primary bony tumor excision. J Craniofac Surg 2002;13:650–657PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wong TY, Fagn JJ, Chung CH, Huang JS, Lee JW. Comparison of two methods of making surgical models for correction of facial asymmetry. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2005;63:200–208PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Heissler E, Fischer FS, Bolouri S, Lehmann T, Mathar W, Gebhardt A, Lanksch W, Bier J. Custom-made cast titanium implants produced with CAD/CAM for the reconstruction of cranium defects. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1998;27:334–338PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tada H, Hatoko M, Tanaka A, Kuwahara M, Mashiba K, Yurugi S, Iioka H, Niitsuma K. Preshaped hydroxyapatite tricalciumphosphate implant using three-dimensional computed tomography in the reconstruction of bone deformities of craniomaxillofacial region. J Craniofac Surg 2002;13:287–292PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ono I, Gunji H, Kaneko F, Numazawa S, Kodama N, Yoza S. Treatment of extensive cranial bone defects using computerdesigned hydroxyapatite ceramics and periosteal flaps. Plast Reconstr Surg 1993;92:819–830PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Katano H, Aihara N, Takeuchi Y, Nozaki M, Yamada K. Tailormade orbitocranioplasty for a sphenorbital encephalocele presenting as pulsatile exophthalmos. Case report. J Neurosurg 2007;106:126–130Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Xia J, Ip HH, Samman N, Wang D, Kot CS, Yeung RW, Tideman H. Computer-assisted three-dimensional surgical planning and simulation: 3D virtual osteotomy. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2000;29:11–17PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Japanese Society for Artificial Organs 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hideto Saijo
    • 1
  • Ung-il Chung
    • 2
  • Kazuyo Igawa
    • 1
  • Yoshiyuki Mori
    • 1
  • Daichi Chikazu
    • 1
  • Mitsuyoshi Iino
    • 1
  • Tsuyoshi Takato
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of MedicineThe University of TokyoTokyoJapan
  2. 2.Division of Tissue Engineering, Faculty of MedicineThe University of Tokyo HospitalTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations