This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

C. S. Maas, MD; G. E. Merwin, MD; J. Wilson, PhD; M. D. Frey, MD; M. D. Maves, MD

Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1990;116(5):551-556.

Abstract
• We compared the gross behavior of and microscopic response to implant materials currently in clinical use for facial bone augmentation at different sites in dogs. Materials evaluated include porous polytetrafluoroethylene carbon (Proplast), large-pore high-density polyethylene (Medpor), solid medical-grade silicone rubber (Silastic), polyamide mesh (Supra-mid), and autogenous rib bone. The subjects were 12 mixed-breed dogs and the materials were implanted directly on bone with periosteum removed at one of three sites in the dog's face (malar eminence, nasal dorsum, and chin). Animals were killed 3 months after surgery and stability of the implants was graded by manual manipulation. Blocks of tissue, including the study materials and underlying bone, were examined microscopically after sectioning. Stability results are tabulated and histologic appearance is described by site for each material evaluated. These data demonstrate marked variability of stability and cellular response depending on the site of implantation. From these data one may conclude that the site of implantation and implant movement are essential factors in determining the nature of the tissue response and fate of an implant. Solid and porous alloplastic materials show an acceptable tissue response, but neither demonstrates the ability to consistently provide an implant that is stable on underlying bone.

(Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1990;116:551-556)

Author Affiliations
From the Department of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery, St Louis (Mo) University Medical Center (Drs Maas and Maves); the Division of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville (Drs Merwin and Frey); and the Bioglass Research Center, J. Hillis Miller Health Center, University of Florida, Gainesville (Dr Wilson).

Footnotes
Accepted for publication December 8, 1989.

Read before the American Academy of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery—Middle Section, Indianapolis, Ind, January 20, 1989.

Reprint requests to the Department of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery, St Louis University Medical Center, 3635 Vista Ave at Grand Boulevard, St Louis, MO 63110 (Dr Maves).

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Use of Customized Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) Implants in the Reconstruction of Complex Maxillofacial Defects
Kim et al.
Arch Facial Plast Surg 2009;11:53-57.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Experimental Facial Augmentation With Hydroxyapatite Cement
Kokoska et al.
Arch Facial Plast Surg 2004;6:290-294.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Cleft Lip Nasal Reconstruction Using Porous High-Density Polyethylene
Romo et al.
Arch Facial Plast Surg 2003;5:175-179.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Tissue Response to Expanded Polytetrafluoroethylene and Silicone Implants in a Rabbit Model
Batniji et al.
Arch Facial Plast Surg 2002;4:111-113.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Malar Augmentation: A 5-Year Retrospective Review of the Silastic Midfacial Malar Implant
Metzinger et al.
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1999;125:980-987.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

The Use of High-Density Polyethylene Implants in Facial Deformities
Frodel and Lee
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1998;124:1219-1223.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Osteoinduction Using Bone Morphogenic Protein in Irradiated Tissue
Howard et al.
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1998;124:985-988.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Porous High-Density Polyethylene Implants in Auricular Reconstruction
Williams et al.
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1997;123:578-583.
ABSTRACT  

Expanded Polytetrafluoroethylene (Gore-Tex Soft-Tissue Patch) in Facial Augmentation
Maas et al.
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1993;119:1008-1014.
ABSTRACT  

Facial Skeletal Augmentation Using Hydroxyapatite Cement
Shindo et al.
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1993;119:185-190.
ABSTRACT  

Hydroxyapatite Cement: II. Obliteration and Reconstruction of the Cat Frontal Sinus
Friedman et al.
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1991;117:385-389.
ABSTRACT