Chernogorskyi D., Vasilyev A., Voller M., Chepurnyi Y., Kopchak A.

DENTISTRY

Scentific article

The mandible is the only movable bone of the facial bones, and is characterized by a unique anatomical structure and internal structure that provides the function of chewing, swallowing, speaking and it has a complex geometric configuration. The aim of present study was to evaluate topography and geometric shape of acquired mandibular defects and to develop objective diagnostic parameters for their preoperative assessment using multislice computed tomography, computer simulation and 3-D visualization. The material of this study was 60 patients with postoperative and post-traumatic defects of the mandible. To determine the geometric correspondence of defects of the mandible and standard bone autografts from the iliac crest and fibula on standardized mid-anatomical computer models (CAD) of the iliac and fibula bones, by virtual osteotomy, formed 3-D models of autografts to a given volume topographic and anatomical principles of their collection. Then the geometric parameters of the grafts was compared with the parameters of the jaw defects. The achieved shape will only conditionally approach the contour of the mandible, without reproducing its natural curvature. Compensation for these discrepancies is possible through the use of patient-specific anatomical fixators. Our standardized algorithm for determining the geometric parameters of the defect makes the measurement technique reproducible and easy to compare. The obtained values have a specific clinical and biological meaning. Conclusion. One of the possible ways to compensate for geometric inconsistencies is the use of combined patient-specific designs containing elements of the endoprosthesis and individualized fixator. When choosing the optimal type of bone graft, it is necessary to take into account its geometric correspondence of the defect, determined according to our proposed algorithm, as well as biomechanical and biological characteristics of the graft and recipient area.

defect of the mandible, CAD/CAM technology, patient specific implants, individualized plates.

1. Metzler P, Geiger EJ, Alcon A, Ma X, Steinbacher DM. Three-dimensional virtual surgery accuracy for free fibula mandibular reconstruction: planned versus actual results. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014;72(12):2601-12.
2. Zheng L, Lv X, Zhang J, Liu S, Zhang J, Zhang Y. Translating computer-aided design and surgical planning into successful mandibular reconstruction using a vascularized iliac-crest flap. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2017 Nov 03;76(4):886-93.
3. Chim H, Salgado CJ, Mardini S, Chen HC. Reconstruction of mandibular defects. Semin Plast Surg. 2010 May;24(2):188-97. DOI: 10.1055/s-0030-1255336
4. Foley BD, Thayer WP, Honeybrook A, McKenna S, Press S. Mandibular reconstruction using computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing: an analysis of surgical results. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2013;71(2):e111-9.
5. Stirling Craig E, Yuhasz M, Shah A, Blumberg J, Salomon J, Lowlicht R, et al. Simulated surgery and cutting guides enhance spatial positioning in free fibular mandibular reconstruction. Microsurgery. 2015;35(1):29-33.
6. Bak M, Jacobson AS, Buchbinder D, Urken ML. Contemporary reconstruction of the mandible. Oral Oncol. 2010 Feb;46(2):71-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2009.11.006
7. Anuja K Antony, Wei F Chen, Antonia Kolokythas, Katherine A Weimer, Mimis N Cohen. Use of virtual surgery and stereo lithographyguided osteotomy for mandibular reconstruction with the free fibula. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011 Nov;128(5):1080-4.
8. Huang JW, Shan XF, Lu XG, Cai ZG. Preliminary clinic study on computer assisted mandibular reconstruction: the positive role of surgical navigation technique. Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;37(1):20.
9. Mascha F, Winter K, Pietzka S, Heufelder M, Schramm A, Wilde F. Accuracy of computer-assisted mandibular reconstructions using patient-specific implants in combination with CAD/CAM fabricated transfer keys. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2017;45(11):1884-97.
10. Iizuka T, Häfliger J, Seto I, Rahal A, Mericske-Stern R, Smolka K. Oral rehabilitation after mandibular reconstruction using an osteocutaneous fibula free flap with endosseous implants. Factors affecting the functional outcome in patients with oral cancer. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2005 Feb;16(1):69-79. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.01076.x
11. Pavlov BL. Klassifikatsiia defektov nizhnei cheliusti. Stomatologiia. 1974 Sep-Oct;53(5):43-6. [in Russiаn].
12. Jewer DD, Boyd JB, Manktelow RT, Zuker RM, Rosen IB, Gullane PJ, et al. Orofacial and mandibular reconstruction with the iliac crest free flap: a review of 60 cases and a new method of classification. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1989 Sep;84(3):391-403;discussion 404-5.
13. Urken ML, Weinberg H, Vickery C, Buchbinder D, Lawson W, Biller HF. Oromandibular reconstruction using microvascular composite free flaps. Report of 71 cases and a new classification scheme for bony, soft-tissue, and neurologic defects. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1991 Jul;117(7):733-44. DOI: 10.1001/archotol.1991.01870190045010
14. Boyd JB, Gullane PJ, Rotstein LE, Brown DH, Irish JC. Classification of mandibular defects. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1993 Dec;92(7):1266-75.
15. David DJ, Tan E, Katsaros J, Sheen R. Mandibular reconstruction with vascularized iliac crest: a 10-year experience. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1988 Nov;82(5):792-803. DOI: 10.1097/00006534-198811000-00011
16. Baumann DP, Yu P, Hanasono MM, Skoracki RJ. Free flap reconstruction of osteoradionecrosis of the mandible: a 10-year review and defect classification. Head Neck. 2011 Jun;33(6):800-7. DOI: 10.1002/hed.21537
17. Davies JC, Chan HHL, Jozaghi Y, Goldstein DP, Irish JC. Analysis of simulated mandibular reconstruction using a segmental mirroring technique. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2019 Mar;47(3):468-72. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcms.2018.12.016
18. Khalifa GA, Abd El Moniem NA, Elsayed SA, Qadry Y. Segmental Mirroring: Does It Eliminate the Need for Intraoperative Readjustment of the Virtually Pre-Bent Reconstruction Plates and Is It Economically Valuable? J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016 Mar;74(3):621-30. DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2015.09.036
19. Brown JS, Barry C, Ho M, Shaw R. A new classification for mandibular defects after oncological resection. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17(1):e23- 30.
20. Van Baar GJC, Forouzanfar T, Liberton NPTJ, Winters HAH, Leusink FKJ. Accuracy of computer-assisted surgery in mandibular reconstruction: a systematic review. Oral Oncol. 2018 Sep;84:52-60. DOI: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2018.07.004
21. Awad ME, Altman A, Elrefai R, Shipman P, Looney S, Elsalanty M. The use of vascularized fibula flap in mandibular reconstruction; a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of the observational studies. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2019 Apr;47(4):629-41. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcms.2019.01.037
22. Ayoub N, Ghassemi A, Rana M, Gerressen M, Riediger D, Holzle F, et al. Evaluation of computer-assisted mandibular reconstruction with vascularized iliac crest bone graft compared to conventional surgery: a randomized prospective clinical trial. Trials. 2014;15:114.

«Bulletin of problems biology and medicine» Issue 3 (157), 2020 year, 357-365 pages, index UDK 616.716.4-091-073.756.8

10.29254/2077-4214-2020-3-157-357-365