medigraphic.com
ISSN 2992-7757 (Electronic)
Órgano de difusión de la Asociación Latinoamericana de Cirugía y Traumatología Bucomaxilofacial (ALACIBU)

2025, Number 1

<< Back Next >>

Lat Am J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2025; 5 (1)

Zygomatic arch reconstruction with PEEK + HA

Delgado CAE, Holguín GI, Agudelo LD, Czeslaw JT

Language: Spanish
References: 17
Page: 25-27
PDF size: 255.42 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Zygomatic arch reconstruction is a crucial surgical procedure in correcting facial fractures. The zygomatic arch, a prominent bony structure in the face, can fracture due to traumas such as car accidents, falls, or assaults. These fractures can lead to facial deformities, affect masticatory function, and cause chronic pain if not properly addressed. Therefore, a clinical case of a patient with a deformity of the zygomatic complex performed at the general hospital of Medellin is presented. For this purpose, a custom-designed prosthesis was made using materials such as PEEK (polyether-ether-ketone) with hydroxyapatite reinforcement. Follow-up was conducted over a period of more than six months, yielding favorable results. This demonstrates that with new surgical planning, more precise outcomes can be achieved in complex cases of facial deformity reconstructions.


REFERENCES

  1. Chen Y, Chen X, Zhang Y, Xie L, Wu Y. Application of 3D printing technology in treatment of zygomatic fractures. J Craniofac Surg. 2016; 27 (5): 1237-1240. doi: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000002671.

  2. Kim YK, Yun PY. Comparison of polyetheretherketone implants with and without hydroxyapatite coating for bone remodeling and osseointegration in a rabbit model. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2016; 44 (11): 1714-1721. doi: 10.1016/j.jcms.2016.08.013.

  3. Perren SM. Evolution of the internal fixation of long bone fractures. The scientific basis of biological internal fixation: choosing a new balance between stability and biology. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2002; 84 (8): 1093-1110. doi: 10.1302/0301-620x.84b8.12986.

  4. Yang X, Wang Q, Zhang Y, He H, Xiong S, Chen P, et al. A dual-functional PEEK implant coating for anti-bacterial and accelerated osseointegration. doi: 10.1016/j.colsurfb.2023.113196.

  5. Ghosh SK, Bansal M, Singh S, Chandel S, Nayyar AS. Titanium versus polyetheretherketone (PEEK) implants for cranioplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2021; 49 (3): 242-250. doi: 10.1016/j.jcms.2020.12.018.

  6. Mazzoni E, D'Agostino A, Manfrini M, Casadio C, Iaquinta MR, Quaranta A. Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cranial implants: Systematic review and meta-analysis of the current literature. J Cranio-Maxillofac Surg. 2019; 47 (1): 99-104. doi: 10.1016/j.jcms.2018.10.006.

  7. Bianchi FA, Cavenaghi R, Pontello MM, et al. Digital workflow for zygomatic complex fractures: A novel three-dimensional workflow. J Craniofac Surg. 2020; 31 (8): e756-e761. doi: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000006853.

  8. Lee SH, Lee HK, Kim HS, et al. Digital workflow for the management of zygomaticomaxillary complex fractures. J Craniofac Surg. 2020; 31 (7): 1841-1847. doi: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000006618.

  9. Bérzin F. PEEK implants: a real alternative to titanium for maxillofacial surgery? Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015; 53 (4): 305-307. doi: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2015.01.010.

  10. Lan X, Zhang Z, Jin L, Liao Y, Su S. The application of three-dimensional printed peek in maxillofacial fracture repair. J Craniofac Surg. 2018; 29 (6): e581-e583. doi: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000004806. PMID: 29905680.

  11. Kumar H, Sharma R, Singh GK, Yadav VS, Parashar A. Comparative evaluation of tensile strength of titanium and polyether ether ketone (peek) based cages: an in-vitro study. J Clin Diagn Res. 2017; 11 (6): ZC06-ZC08. doi: 10.7860/JCDR/2017/27055.10034.

  12. Barone A, Toti P, Marconcini S, et al. The use of PEEK material in implant dentistry: a narrative review. Biomaterials. 2018; 120: 56-65. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2016.11.018.

  13. Parthasarathy J, Starly B, Raman S, Christensen A. Mechanical evaluation of porous poly-ether-ether-ketone as a scaffold for bone ingrowth. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2010; 3 (7): 626-634. doi: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2010.06.004.

  14. He B, Wu Z, Zhang S, Liu Y, Lin M, Zhu X. Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) rod bending stiffness does not affect initial bone-implant fixation: a comparison of PEEK and titanium rods. J Orthop Surg Res. 2018; 13 (1): 123. doi: 10.1186/s13018-018-0814-1.

  15. Salerno A, Hermann G, Dziedzic R, Phillips M, Day T. Bioactivity and bone healing properties of 3-dimensional porous polyetheretherketone scaffolds in a rabbit calvarial defect model. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015; 73 (3): 459.e1-9. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2014.10.021.

  16. Barbier L, Daisne JF, Lipski M, et al. Selection of patients and cases for surgery using augmented reality guidance in cranio-maxillofacial surgery. J Clin Med. 2021; 10 (7): 1424. doi:10.3390/jcm10071424.

  17. El Bardouni A, Verdonck A, Haddad O, Lamrih R, Lazrak K, Zaddoug O, et al. Midface reconstruction using poly-ether-ether-ketone (PEEK) custom-made implants after total maxillectomy. Int J Surg Case Rep. 2019; 65: 148-151. doi: 10.1016/j.ijscr.2019.11.027.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com