This Article  • 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  • Citing articles on Web of Science (11)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related articles  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Alloplastic vs Autogenous

Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2000;126:558-561.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

Hypothesis

Autogenous grafts are preferable to synthetic materials in rhinoplasty.

BACKGROUND

Over the past 15 years, grafts have been used with increasing frequency during rhinoplasty procedures as the transition has been made from reductive rhinoplasty to augmentation or restructuring rhinoplasty. There are a number of grafting materials available, including autogenous materials (bone, cartilage), homograft materials (rib cartilage, dermis), and a wide variety of synthetic or alloplastic materials. With regard to the autogenous materials, cartilage has been the mainstay for augmentation in rhinoplasty. Bone is used infrequently because it often yields unsatisfactory results in the aesthetic appearance of the nose, and has problems with graft resorption.¹ I will therefore not discuss bone herein. This article focuses on the differences between autogenous cartilage implants and synthetic materials, in particular expanded PTFE (Gore-tex; WL Gore & Associates Inc, Flagstaff, Ariz).

Figure appears in full text version. Jennifer Parker Porter, MD

Certainly, there is no argument that autogenous grafts, in particular cartilaginous . . . [Full Text of this Article]

PRO

CON

BOTTOM LINE



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

RELATED ARTICLES

Grafts in Rhinoplasty: Autogenous Grafts Are Superior to Alloplastic
Peter A. Adamson
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2000;126(4):561-562.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Autogenous Grafts Are Worth the Extra Time
Dean M. Toriumi
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2000;126(4):562-564.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Applications of GORE-TEX Implants in Rhinoplasty Reexamined After 17 Years
Conrad et al.
Arch Facial Plast Surg 2008;10:224-231.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Comparison of AlloDerm, Fat, Fascia, Cartilage, and Dermal Grafts in Rabbits
Tarhan et al.
Arch Facial Plast Surg 2008;10:187-193.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Crushed Cartilage Grafts for Concealing Irregularities in Rhinoplasty
Cakmak and Buyuklu
Arch Facial Plast Surg 2007;9:352-357.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Viability of Cultured Human Nasal Septum Chondrocytes After Crushing
Cakmak et al.
Arch Facial Plast Surg 2005;7:406-409.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Viability of Crushed and Diced Cartilage Grafts: A Study in Rabbits
Cakmak et al.
Arch Facial Plast Surg 2005;7:21-26.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Immediate Autogenous Cartilage Grafts in Rhinoplasty After Alloplastic Implant Rejection
Raghavan et al.
Arch Facial Plast Surg 2004;6:192-196.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Three-Step Reconstruction of Complex Saddle Nose Deformities
Riechelmann and Rettinger
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2004;130:334-338.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

The Versatile Autogenous Costal Cartilage Graft in Septorhinoplasty
Cakmak and Ergin
Arch Facial Plast Surg 2002;4:172-176.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT