Abstract
In the vast majority of cases, precise symmetric reconstruction of maxillofacial defects remains an unsolved problem for craniofacial surgeons. Computer-designed alloplastic implants have contributed considerably to improvement in the accuracy and reliability of facial rehabilitation, rapidly becoming an irreplaceable part of the surgical armamentarium. In recent years, the subsequently developed new generation of computational technologies has allowed planning to be done by preoperative “mirroring” using the healthy side as a template to fabricate an ideal prosthesis for reestablishment of facial symmetry. Two cases of facial defects are reported, one of the midface and another of the lower face reconstructed using a computer-designed polyetheretherketone (PEEK) patient-specific implant (PSI) technique based on “mirroring” computational planning.
Level of Evidence V This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors at www.springer.com/00266.
References
Tessier P (1982) Autogenous bone grafts taken from the calvarium for facial and cranial applications. Clin Plast Surg 9:531–538
Binder WJ (2008) Custom-designed facial implants. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am 16:133–146
Binder WJ, Azizzadeh B (2008) Malar and submalar augmentation. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am 16:11–32
Quatela VC, Chow J (2008) Synthetic facial implants. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am 16:1–10
Terino EO, Edwards MC (2008) Customizing jawlines: the art of alloplastic premandible contouring. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am 16:99–122
Terino EO, Edwards MC (2008) Alloplastic contouring for suborbital, maxillary, zygomatic deficiencies. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am 16:33–67
Scolozzi P, Martinez A, Jaques B (2007) Complex orbitofrontotemporal reconstruction using computer-designed PEEK implant. J Craniofac Surg 18:224–228
Kim MM, Boahene KD, Byrne PJ (2009) Use of customized polyetheretherketone (PEEK) implants in the reconstruction of complex maxillofacial defects. Arch Facial Plast Surg 11:53–57
Niamtu J III (2010) Essentials of cheek and midface implants. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 68:1420–1429
Westendorff C, Gulicher D, Dammann F, Reinert S, Hoffmann J (2006) Computer-assisted surgical treatment of orbitozygomatic fractures. J Craniofac Surg 17:837–842
Fuller SC, Strong EB (2007) Computer applications in facial plastic and reconstructive surgery. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 15:233–237
Scolozzi P, Terzic A (2010) “Mirroring” computational planning, Navigation Guidance System, and intraoperative mobile C-arm cone-beam computed tomography with flat-panel detector: a new rationale in primary and secondary treatment of midfacial fractures? J Oral Maxillofac Surg 69:1697–1707
PEEK-OPTTIMA (2004) Polymer processing guide. Invibio Ltd., Thornton-Cleveleys, UK, pp 1–14
William DF, McNamara A (1987) Potential of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) and carbon-fibre-reinforced PEEK in medical application. J Mater Science Lett 6:188–190
Schlegel J, Green S (2002) Polyetheretherketones (PEEK): a biocompatible high-performance plastic. Med Plast 14:1–10
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Scolozzi, P. Maxillofacial Reconstruction Using Polyetheretherketone Patient-Specific Implants by “Mirroring” Computational Planning. Aesth Plast Surg 36, 660–665 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-011-9853-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-011-9853-2