MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY
OSTEOSYNTHESIS MATERIALS IN MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY: REJECTION, REMOVAL, CORROSION AND PARTICLE DETECTION RATES
DOI: https://doi.org/10.25241/stomaeduj.2021.8(2).art.4
Samy El Bachaoui1a , Constantinus Politis1b*
1Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
aMD, Master’s Student in Medicine; e-mail: samy.elbachaoui@gmail.com; ORCIDiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4492-7564
bMD, DDS, MM, MHA, PhD, Professor & Chairperson; e-mail: constantinus.politis@uzleuven.be; ORCIDiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4772-9897
Abstract
Background Titanium is traditionally the material of choice for osteosynthesis in maxillofacial surgery and has a wide array of application in this field. Conversely, a growing interest for alternative fixation methods has emerged in the literature. Promising results have been reported for 3D-designed and manufactured (CAD/CAM) titanium materials, whereas the use of biodegradable materials seems to be a more controversial topic.
Objective To conduct a narrative review on the complications related to osteosynthesis materials in maxillofacial surgery in terms of rejection-, removal-, corrosion- and particle detection rates.
Data Sources A literature search was performed in April 2020 using the electronic database PubMed (National Library of Medicine, NCBI). The search included studies published between 1999 and March 2019.
Study Selection Articles were eligible for inclusion when data for the outcomes of interest were available.
Data Extraction Complication rates including rejection-, removal-, corrosion- and particle detection rates
were extracted.
Data Synthesis The data were synthesized and analyzed according to the different types of osteosynthesis
materials and fixation methods. Finally, the results were summarized and recommendations were listed for
different types of surgical indications.
Keywords
Mandibular Reconstruction; Bone Plates; Postoperative Complications; Surgical Wound Dehiscence; Corrosion.