Cargando…
Facial Bone Reconstruction Using both Marine or Non-Marine Bone Substitutes: Evaluation of Current Outcomes in a Systematic Literature Review
The aim of the present investigation was to systematically analyse the literature on the facial bone reconstruction defect using marine collagen or not and to evaluate a predictable treatment for their clinical management. The revision has been performed by searched MEDLINE and EMBASE databases from...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5793075/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29342834 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/md16010027 |
_version_ | 1783296871504019456 |
---|---|
author | Cicciù, Marco Cervino, Gabriele Herford, Alan Scott Famà, Fausto Bramanti, Ennio Fiorillo, Luca Lauritano, Floriana Sambataro, Sergio Troiano, Giuseppe Laino, Luigi |
author_facet | Cicciù, Marco Cervino, Gabriele Herford, Alan Scott Famà, Fausto Bramanti, Ennio Fiorillo, Luca Lauritano, Floriana Sambataro, Sergio Troiano, Giuseppe Laino, Luigi |
author_sort | Cicciù, Marco |
collection | PubMed |
description | The aim of the present investigation was to systematically analyse the literature on the facial bone reconstruction defect using marine collagen or not and to evaluate a predictable treatment for their clinical management. The revision has been performed by searched MEDLINE and EMBASE databases from 2007 to 2017. Clinical trials and animal in vitro studies that had reported the application of bone substitutes or not for bone reconstruction defect and using marine collagen or other bone substitute material were recorded following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The first selection involved 1201 citations. After screening and evaluation of suitability, 39 articles were added at the revision process. Numerous discrepancies among the papers about bone defects morphology, surgical protocols, and selection of biomaterials were found. All selected manuscripts considered the final clinical success after the facial bone reconstruction applying bone substitutes. However, the scientific evidence regarding the vantage of the appliance of a biomaterial versus autologous bone still remains debated. Marine collagen seems to favor the dimensional stability of the graft and it could be an excellent carrier for growth factors. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5793075 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-57930752018-02-06 Facial Bone Reconstruction Using both Marine or Non-Marine Bone Substitutes: Evaluation of Current Outcomes in a Systematic Literature Review Cicciù, Marco Cervino, Gabriele Herford, Alan Scott Famà, Fausto Bramanti, Ennio Fiorillo, Luca Lauritano, Floriana Sambataro, Sergio Troiano, Giuseppe Laino, Luigi Mar Drugs Review The aim of the present investigation was to systematically analyse the literature on the facial bone reconstruction defect using marine collagen or not and to evaluate a predictable treatment for their clinical management. The revision has been performed by searched MEDLINE and EMBASE databases from 2007 to 2017. Clinical trials and animal in vitro studies that had reported the application of bone substitutes or not for bone reconstruction defect and using marine collagen or other bone substitute material were recorded following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The first selection involved 1201 citations. After screening and evaluation of suitability, 39 articles were added at the revision process. Numerous discrepancies among the papers about bone defects morphology, surgical protocols, and selection of biomaterials were found. All selected manuscripts considered the final clinical success after the facial bone reconstruction applying bone substitutes. However, the scientific evidence regarding the vantage of the appliance of a biomaterial versus autologous bone still remains debated. Marine collagen seems to favor the dimensional stability of the graft and it could be an excellent carrier for growth factors. MDPI 2018-01-13 /pmc/articles/PMC5793075/ /pubmed/29342834 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/md16010027 Text en © 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Review Cicciù, Marco Cervino, Gabriele Herford, Alan Scott Famà, Fausto Bramanti, Ennio Fiorillo, Luca Lauritano, Floriana Sambataro, Sergio Troiano, Giuseppe Laino, Luigi Facial Bone Reconstruction Using both Marine or Non-Marine Bone Substitutes: Evaluation of Current Outcomes in a Systematic Literature Review |
title | Facial Bone Reconstruction Using both Marine or Non-Marine Bone Substitutes: Evaluation of Current Outcomes in a Systematic Literature Review |
title_full | Facial Bone Reconstruction Using both Marine or Non-Marine Bone Substitutes: Evaluation of Current Outcomes in a Systematic Literature Review |
title_fullStr | Facial Bone Reconstruction Using both Marine or Non-Marine Bone Substitutes: Evaluation of Current Outcomes in a Systematic Literature Review |
title_full_unstemmed | Facial Bone Reconstruction Using both Marine or Non-Marine Bone Substitutes: Evaluation of Current Outcomes in a Systematic Literature Review |
title_short | Facial Bone Reconstruction Using both Marine or Non-Marine Bone Substitutes: Evaluation of Current Outcomes in a Systematic Literature Review |
title_sort | facial bone reconstruction using both marine or non-marine bone substitutes: evaluation of current outcomes in a systematic literature review |
topic | Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5793075/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29342834 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/md16010027 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT cicciumarco facialbonereconstructionusingbothmarineornonmarinebonesubstitutesevaluationofcurrentoutcomesinasystematicliteraturereview AT cervinogabriele facialbonereconstructionusingbothmarineornonmarinebonesubstitutesevaluationofcurrentoutcomesinasystematicliteraturereview AT herfordalanscott facialbonereconstructionusingbothmarineornonmarinebonesubstitutesevaluationofcurrentoutcomesinasystematicliteraturereview AT famafausto facialbonereconstructionusingbothmarineornonmarinebonesubstitutesevaluationofcurrentoutcomesinasystematicliteraturereview AT bramantiennio facialbonereconstructionusingbothmarineornonmarinebonesubstitutesevaluationofcurrentoutcomesinasystematicliteraturereview AT fiorilloluca facialbonereconstructionusingbothmarineornonmarinebonesubstitutesevaluationofcurrentoutcomesinasystematicliteraturereview AT lauritanofloriana facialbonereconstructionusingbothmarineornonmarinebonesubstitutesevaluationofcurrentoutcomesinasystematicliteraturereview AT sambatarosergio facialbonereconstructionusingbothmarineornonmarinebonesubstitutesevaluationofcurrentoutcomesinasystematicliteraturereview AT troianogiuseppe facialbonereconstructionusingbothmarineornonmarinebonesubstitutesevaluationofcurrentoutcomesinasystematicliteraturereview AT lainoluigi facialbonereconstructionusingbothmarineornonmarinebonesubstitutesevaluationofcurrentoutcomesinasystematicliteraturereview |