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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Cicciù, Marco, Cervino, Gabriele, Herford, Alan Scott, Famà, Fausto, Bramanti, Ennio, Fiorillo, Luca, Lauritano, Floriana, Sambataro, Sergio, Troiano, Giuseppe, Laino, Luigi
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