EVALUATION OF THE USE OF ZIRCONIA POROUS SCAFFOLD IN THE REPAIR OF OROANTRAL FISTULA

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery department, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University

2 Professor of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery department, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University

3 Assistant Professor of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery department, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: There is a variety of treatment modalities for oroantral defects based on repair of soft tissue component only of the defect. However, bone regeneration is needed to allow for later restoration of the missing tooth. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of zirconia porous scaffold in oroantral defects. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was conducted on ten patients suffering from oroantral defects of more than three weeks duration and having a width of at least five millimeters (mm). The patients were treated with placement of a custom made zirconia porous scaffold along with buccal advancement flap after a virtual surface for bone model was reconstructed from the cone-beam computed tomography and printed by stereolithography 3D printing method. RESULTS: Clinically, there was a significant improvement in wound healing in 80% of the cases across the follow up period with only 20% of the patients the wound didn’t heal due to infected wound margins and the full scaffold was lost prior to the end of the follow-up period and required further treatment later on. Pain intensity decreased throughout the follow-up period with the maximum pain intensity was only immediately postoperative. Radiographically, there was a significant increase in bone density from the baseline by 41.2 percentage change. CONCLUSION: Zirconia porous scaffold is a biocompatible material that enhances new bone formation in closure of oroantral fistulas through its high porosity and clear interconnected porous surface which are a suitable environment for osteoblastic activity.

Keywords

References

1. Simuntis R, Kubilius R, Vaitkus S. Odontogenic maxillary sinusitis: A review. Stomatologija. 2014;16:39-43.
2. Malik NA. Textbook of oral and maxillofacial surgery. 2nd ed. New Delhi: Jaypee Brothers Publishers, 2008:563-86.
3. Franco-Carro B, Barona-Dorado C, MartinezGonzalez MJ, Rubio-Alonso LJ, Martinez-Gonzalez JM. Meta-analytic study on the frequency and treatment of oral antral communications. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2011;16:682-7.
4. Del Rey-Santamaria M, Valmaseda Castellon E, Berini Aytes L, Gay-Escoda C. Incidence of oral sinus communications in 389 upper third molar extraction. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2006;11:334-8.
5. Borgnovo A, Berardinelli FV, Favale M, Maiorana C. Surgical Options In Oroantral Fistula Treatment. Open Dent J. 2012;6:94-98.
6. Candamourty R, Jain MK, Sankar K, Babu MR. Double-layered closure of oroantral fistula using buccal fat pad and buccal advancement flap. J Nat Sc Biol Med. 2012;3:203-205.
7. Scattarella A, Ballini A, Grassi FR, Carbonara A, Ciccolella F, Dituri A, et al. Treatment of oroantral fistula with autologous bone graft and application of a non-resorbable membrane. Int J Med Sci. 2010;7:267- 271.
8. Langer R, Vacanti JP. Tissue engineering. Science. 1993;260:920-6.
9. Langer R, Tirrell DA. Designing materials for biology and medicine. Nature. 2004;428:487-92.
10. Hawker GA, Mian S, Kenzerska T, French M. Measures of adult pain: Visual analog scale for pain (vas pain), numeric rating scale for pain (nrs pain), mcgill pain questionnaire (mpq), short-form mcgill pain questionnaire (sf-mpq), chronic pain grade scale (cpgs), short form-36 bodily pain scale (sf-36 bps), and measure of intermittent and constant osteoarthritis pain (ICOAP). Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2011;63:S240-52.
11. Jovanovi'c G, Buri'c N, Tijani'c M. Stimulation of mucoperiosteal slice epithelialization by small power laser after the primary plastic of oroantral communication. Medicinski Pregled. 2010;63:188-93.
12. Bickel PJ, Doksum KA. Mathematical statistics: basic ideas and selected topics. London: CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group, 2015.
13. Kirkpatrick L, Feeney B. A simple guide to IBM SPSS statistics for version 20.0. Student edition. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning, 2013.
14. Hernando J, Gallego L, Junquera L, Villarreal P. Oroantral communications. A retrospective analysis. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2010;15:e499-503.
15. Hariram U, Mohammad S, Singh R, Singh G, Malkunje LR. Buccal fat pad versus sandwich graft for treatment of oroantral defects: A comparison. Natl J Maxillofac Surg. 2010;1:6-14.
16. Li WJ, Laurencin CT, Caterson EJ, Tuan RS. Electrospun nanofibrous structure: A novel scaffold for tissue engineering. J Biomed Mater. 2002;60:613- 21.
17. Léon y Léon CA. New perspectives in mercury porosimetry. Advances in colloid and interface Science, 1998.
18. Story BJ, Wanger WR, Gaisser DM, Cook SD, RustDawicki AM. In vivo performance of a modified CSTi dental implant coating. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1998;13:749-57.
19. Kuboki Y, Takita H, Kobayashi D, Tsuruga E, Murata M. BMP-induced osteogenesis on the surface of hydroxyapatite with geometrically feasible and non feasible structures: Topology of osteogenesis. J Biomed Mater Res. 1998;39:190-9.
20. Yabroudi F, Dannan A. A Comparison between Submucosal Connective Tissue Palatal Flap and Conventional Pedicle Palatal Flap for the Closure of Oroantral Fistulae. Intern J Dent Sci. 2008;8(1).
21. Freudlsperger C, Castrillon-Oberndorfer G, Baechli H, Hoffmann J, Mertens C, Engel M. The value of ultrasound-assisted pinned resorbable osteosynthesis for cranial vault remodeling in craniosynostosis. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2014;42:503-7.
22. Amaratunga NA. Oroantral fistulae-a study of clinical, radiological and treatment aspects. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1986;24:433-7.
23. Punwutikorn J, Waikakul A, Pairuchvej V. Clinically significant oroantral communications-a study of incidence and site. Int J Oral maxillofac Surg. 1994;23:19-21.
24. Lazow SK. Surgical management of the oroantral flap procedures. Oper Tech Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1999;10:148-52.
25. Abuabara A, Cortez AL, Passeri LA, De Moraes M, Moreira RF. Evaluation of different treatments for oroantral/ oronasal communications: experience of 112 cases. Int J Oral Maxillofacial Surg. 2006;35:155-8.
26. Skoglund LA, Pedersen SS, Holst E. Surgical management of 85 perforations to the maxillary sinus. Int J Oral Surg. 1983;12:1-5.
27. Guven O. A clinical study on oroantral fistulae. J Cranio Maxillofac Surg. 1998;26:267-71.
28. Roy TD, Siomon JL, Ricci JL, Rekow ED, Parson JR. Performance of degradable composite bone repair products made via three-dimensional fabrication ztechniques. J Biomed Mater. 2003;66:283-91.
29. Kujala S, Ryhanen J, Danilov A, Tuukkanen J. Effect of porosity on the oseointegration and bone ingrowth of a weight bearing nickel-titanium bone graft substitute. J Biomater. 2003;24:4691-7.
30. Fisher JP, Vehof JW, Dean D, Van der Waerden JP, Holland TA, Mikos AG, et al. Soft and hard tissue response to photocrosslinked poly (propylene fumarate) scaffolds in a rabbit model. J Biomed Mater. 2002;59:547-56.
31. Piconi C, Maccauro G. Zirconia as a ceramic biomaterial. Biomaterials. 1999;20:1-25.
32. Karageorgiou V, Kaplan D. Porosity of 3D Biomaterial scaffolds and osteogenesis. J Biomater. 2005;26:5474-91.
33. Hulbert SF, Young FA, Mathewes RS, Klawetter JJ, Talbert CD, Stelling FH. Potential of ceramic materials as permanently implantable skeletal prosthesis. J Biomed Mater Res. 1970;4:433-56.
34. Schultze-Mosgau S, Schliephake H, RadespielTröger M, Neukam FW. Osseointegration of endodontic endosseous cones: zirconium oxide vs titanium. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2000;89:91-8.
35. Itälä AI, Ylänen HO, Ekholm C, Karlsson KH, Aro HT. Pore diameter of more than 100 micron is not requisite for bone ingrowth in rabbits. J Biomed Mater Res. 2001;58:679-8

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics