The use of NVBG for mandibular defects seems to be gradually giving way for more advanced reconstructive techniques but it has the advantages of shorter operating time and lesser amount of blood loss. The aim of this study was to review the available data on the success and failure rates of use of NVBG and factors associated with failure.
Method
Studies published from 1978 to 2014 regarding the use of NVBG were searched. Most important information was graft success and failure outcomes. Information on graft success with particular focus on large defects was extracted and the quality of papers was rated. Defects > 6cm were considered long defects.
Results
Twenty publications were included in this review. The quality of the studies was low and there was high heterogeneity. All articles reported high graft success rates ranging from 67 to 100%. Success in defects > 6cm was considerable, the range was 72–100%. Three main factors were associated with failure; these were defect length, fixation method and infection. Infection contributed the highest complication rate which was 48.2%.
Conclusion
NVBG seems to be appropriate for mandible reconstruction when there is vascular recipient bed and sufficient soft tissue cover and mucosal lining are achievable.
AdamoAKSzalRLTiming, results, and complications of mandibular reconstructive surgery: report of 32 casesJ Oral Surg19793710755–763
2.
TidstromKDKellerEEReconstruction of mandibular discontinuity with autogenous iliac bone graft: report of 34 consecutive patientsJ Oral Maxillofac Surg1990484336–346, discussion 347
3.
AugustMTompachPChangYKabanLFactors influencing the long-term outcome of mandibular reconstructionJ Oral Maxillofac Surg2000587731–737, discussion 738
4.
EgyediPWound infection after mandibular reconstruction with autogenous graftAnn Acad Med Singapore1986153340–345
5.
PogrelMAPodleshSAnthonyJPAlexanderJA comparison of vascularized and nonvascularized bone grafts for reconstruction of mandibular continuity defectsJ Oral Maxillofac Surg199755111200–1206
6.
FosterRDAnthonyJPSharmaAPogrelMAVascularized bone flaps versus nonvascularized bone grafts for mandibular reconstruction: an outcome analysis of primary bony union and endosseous implant successHead Neck199921166–71
7.
ChiapascoMCollettiGRomeoEZaniboniMBrusatiRLong-term results of mandibular reconstruction with autogenous bone grafts and oral implants after tumor resectionClin Oral Implants Res200819101074–1080
8.
ObiechinaAEOgunladeSOFasolaAOArotibaJTMandibular segmental reconstruction with iliac crestWest Afr J Med200322146–49
9.
OkojeVNObimakindeOSArotibaJTFasolaAOOgunladeSOObiechinaAEMandibular defect reconstruction with nonvascularized iliac crest bone graftNiger J Clin Pract2012152224–227
10.
RobeyABSpannMLMcAuliffTMMezaJLHollinsRRJohnsonPJComparison of miniplates and reconstruction plates in fibular flap reconstruction of the mandiblePlast Reconstr Surg200812261733–1738
11.
GuerrierGAlaqeeliAAl JawadiAFooteNBaronEAlbustanjiAReconstruction of residual mandibular defects by iliac crest bone graft in war-wounded Iraqi civilians, 2006-2011Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg2015536e27–e31
12.
TaherAAYReconstruction of gunshot wounds of the mandible. 128 cases treated by autogenous iliac crest bone graftsJ Craniomaxillofac Surg1990187310–314
13.
HongMChenZHSunH, et al. Clinical application of autogenous mandibular bone grafts. Analysis of 166 casesChin Med J (Engl)198910210791–794
14.
HaydenREMullinDPPatelAKReconstruction of the segmental mandibular defect: current state of the artCurr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg2012204231–236
15.
ArdaryWCReconstruction of mandibular discontinuity defects using autogenous grafting and a mandibular reconstruction plate: a prospective evaluation of nine consecutive casesJ Oral Maxillofac Surg1993512125–130, discussion 131–132
16.
SajidMAHWarraichRAAbidHEhsan-ul-HaqMShahKLKhanZReconstruction of mandibular defects with autogenous bone grafts: a review of 30 casesJ Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad201123382–85
17.
KudoKFujiokaYReview of bone grafting for reconstruction of discontinuity defects of the mandibleJ Oral Surg19783610791–793
18.
MaurerPEckertAWKriwalskyMSSchubertJScope and limitations of methods of mandibular reconstruction: a long-term follow-upBr J Oral Maxillofac Surg2010482100–104
19.
PerssonGAstrandPLundgrenAStenströmSMandibular reconstruction with bone graftsInt J Oral Surg197876512–522
20.
van GemertJTMvan EsRJVan CannEMKooleRNonvascularized bone grafts for segmental reconstruction of the mandible–a reappraisalJ Oral Maxillofac Surg20096771446–1452
21.
el-SheikhMMZeitounIMMedraAMThe split rib bundle graft in mandibular reconstructionJ Craniomaxillofac Surg1992208326–332
22.
AdekeyeEOReconstruction of mandibular defects by autogenous bone grafts: a review of 37 casesJ Oral Surg1978362125–128
23.
KudoKShojiMYokotaMFujiokaYEvaluation of mandibular reconstruction techniques following resection of malignant tumors in the oral regionJ Oral Maxillofac Surg199250114–21
24.
GadrePKRamanojamSPatankarAGadreKSNonvascularized bone grafting for mandibular reconstruction: myth or reality?J Craniofac Surg20112251727–1735
25.
NdukweKCAregbesolaSBIkemIC, et al. Reconstruction of mandibular defects using nonvascularized autogenous bone graft in nigeriansNiger J Surg201420287–91
26.
AdenikeOAOlukunleATOlusegunIAIfeoluAVTundeAJPerioperative findings and complications of non-vascularised iliac crest graft harvest: The experience of a Nigerian tertiary hospitalNiger Med J2014553224–229
27.
MoherDLiberatiATetzlaffJAltmanDG; PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statementPLoS Med200967e1000097
28.
JewerDDBoydJBManktelowRT, et al. Orofacial and mandibular reconstruction with the iliac crest free flap: a review of 60 cases and a new method of classificationPlast Reconstr Surg1989843391–403, discussion 404–405
29.
HuisstedeBMiedemaHSvan OpstalTde RondeMTVerhaarJAKoesBWInterventions for treating the radial tunnel syndrome: a systematic review of observational studiesJ Hand Surg Am200833172–78
