Craniofacial microsomia (CFM) is a congenital anomaly with a variable phenotype. The most prominent feature of CFM is a predominantly unilateral hypoplasia of the mandible, leading to facial asymmetry. Even after correction of the midline, there is often a remaining hard- and soft-tissue deficiency over the body of the mandible and cheek on the affected side. This clinical report describes the skeletal augmentation of the mandible with a patient-specific implant to treat residual facial asymmetry in two female patients with unilateral CFM. Good aesthetic results were achieved in both patients treated with either a Medpor or polyetheretherketone implant without complications after a follow-up time of 55 and 30 months, respectively.
OhtaniJHoffmanWYVargervikKOberoiSTeam management and treatment outcomes for patients with hemifacial microsomiaAm J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop2012141(4, Suppl): S74–S81
2.
CousleyRRJCalvertMLCurrent concepts in the understanding and management of hemifacial microsomiaBr J Plast Surg1997507536–551
3.
HeikeCLHingAVCraniofacial microsomia overview In: PagonRABTDolanCRStephensK Eds. GeneReviews, 2010 editionSeattle, WAUniversity of Washington
4.
PluijmersBICaronCJJMDunawayDJWolviusEBKoudstaalMJMandibular reconstruction in the growing patient with unilateral craniofacial microsomia: a systematic reviewInt J Oral Maxillofac Surg2014433286–295
5.
Guijarro-MartínezRMiragall AlbaLMarqués MateoMPuche TorresMPascual GilJVAutologous fat transfer to the cranio-maxillofacial region: updates and controversiesJ Craniomaxillofac Surg2011395359–363
SbordoneLTotiPMenchini-FabrisGBSbordoneCPiombinoPGuidettiFVolume changes of autogenous bone grafts after alveolar ridge augmentation of atrophic maxillae and mandiblesInt J Oral Maxillofac Surg200938101059–1065
8.
MoonBJLeeHJJangYJOutcomes following rhinoplasty using autologous costal cartilageArch Facial Plast Surg2012143175–180
9.
GuiLZhangZZangM, et al. Restoration of facial symmetry in hemifacial microsomia with mandibular outer cortex bone grafting combined with distraction osteogenesisPlast Reconstr Surg201112751997–2004
10.
YaremchukMJFacial skeletal reconstruction using porous polyethylene implantsPlast Reconstr Surg200311161818–1827
11.
CenziRFarinaAZuccarinoLCarinciFClinical outcome of 285 Medpor grafts used for craniofacial reconstructionJ Craniofac Surg2005164526–530
12.
KurtzSMDevineJNPEEK biomaterials in trauma, orthopedic, and spinal implantsBiomaterials200728324845–4869
13.
EppleyBLKilgoMColemanJJIIICranial reconstruction with computer-generated hard-tissue replacement patient-matched implants: indications, surgical technique, and long-term follow-upPlast Reconstr Surg20021093864–871
14.
KimMMBoaheneKDOByrnePJUse of customized polyetheretherketone (PEEK) implants in the reconstruction of complex maxillofacial defectsArch Facial Plast Surg200911153–57
15.
GoodsonMLFarrDKeithDBanksRJUse of two-piece polyetheretherketone (PEEK) implants in orbitozygomatic reconstructionBr J Oral Maxillofac Surg2012503268–269
16.
ScolozziPMaxillofacial reconstruction using polyetheretherketone patient-specific implants by “mirroring” computational planningAesthetic Plast Surg2012363660–665
17.
Guevara-RojasGFiglMSchichoK, et al. Patient-specific polyetheretherketone facial implants in a computer-aided planning workflowJ Oral Maxillofac Surg20147291801–1812
18.
GerbinoGBianchiFAZavatteroETartaraFGarbossaDDucatiASingle-step resection and reconstruction using patient-specific implants in the treatment of benign cranio-orbital tumorsJ Oral Maxillofac Surg201371111969–1982
19.
KabanLBMosesMHMullikenJBCorrection of hemifacial microsomia in the growing child: a follow-up studyCleft Palate J1986230150–52
20.
PruzanskySNot all dwarfed mandibles are alikeBirth Defects Orig Artic Ser19695120–129
