Lateral augmentation of the angle of the mandible can be a useful procedure in treating lateral mandibular defects. It may also be useful in treating deficiencies in mandibular width. In this article we present a technique for augmentation of the lateral mandible using porous hydroxyapatite block and a discussion of three cases in which this technique was used.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
DelaireJSchendelSATulasneJF. An architectural and structural craniofacial analysis: A new lateral cephalometric analysis. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol1981;52(3):226–38.
2.
RickettsRH. Cephalometric analysis and synthesis. Angle Orthod1961;31:141–56.
3.
WylieGAFishLCEpkerBN. Cephalometrics: A comparison of five analyses currently used in the diagnosis of dentofacial deformities. Int J Adult Orthod1987;2(1):15–36.
4.
FarkusLGMunroIR, editors. Anthropometric facial proportions in medicine. Springfield (IL): Charles C Thomas; 1987:170, 182.
5.
HindererUT. Malar implants for improvement of the facial appearance. Plast Reconstr Surg1975;56(2):157–65.
6.
PowellNBRileyRWLaubDR. A new approach to evaluation and surgery of the malar complex. Ann Plast Surg1988;20(3):206–14.
WhitakerLA. Aesthetic augmentation of the posterior mandible. Plast Reconstr Surg1991;87(2):268–75.
9.
PetersonLJ. Complications with porous hydroxylapatite blocks for ridge augmentation. [Letter]. J Oral Maxillofac Surg1987;45(12):996.
10.
HolmesREWardropRWWolfordLM. Hydroxylapatite as a bone graft substitute in orthognathic surgery: Histologic and histometric findings. J Oral Maxillofac Surg1988;46(8):661–71.
11.
ZellerSDHiattWRMooreDLFainDW. Use of performed hydroxylapatite blocks for grafting in genioplasty procedures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg1986;15(6):665–8.
12.
FrameJWBradyCL. The versatility of hydroxyapatite blocks in maxillofacial surgery. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg1987;25(6):452–64.
13.
WaitePDMorawetzRBZeigerHEPincockJL. Reconstruction of cranial defects with porous hydroxylapatite blocks. Neurosurgery1989;25(2):214–7.
14.
HolmesREHaglerHK. Porous hydroxylapatite as a bone graft substitute in mandibular contour augmentation: A histometric study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg1987;45(5):421–9.
15.
CarlsonERMarxRE. Part II. Mandibular reconstruction using cancellous cellular bone grafts. J Oral Maxillofac Surg1996;54(7):889–97.
16.
MarxREKlineSN. Principles and methods of osseous reconstruction. In: MurphyBL, editor. International advances in surgical oncology. London: Liss; 1983:167–228.
17.
LaurieSWSKabanLBMullikenJBMurrayJE. Donor site morbidity after harvesting rib and iliac bone. Plast Reconstr Surg1984;73:933–8.
18.
KlineRMJrWolfeSA. Complications associated with the harvesting of cranial bone grafts. Plast Reconstr Surg1995;95(1):5–20.
19.
ChenNTGlowckiJBuckyLPHongHZKimWK. The role of revascularization and resorption on endurance of craniofacial onlay bone grafts in the rabbit. Plast Reconstr Surg1994;93(4):714–24.
20.
DodsonTBBaysRAPfeffleRCBarrowDL. Cranial bone graft to reconstruct the mandibular condyle in macaca mulatta. J Oral Maxillofac Surg1997;55(3):260–7.
21.
AlonsoNde AlmeidaMachado OJorgettiVAmaranteMT. Cranial verses iliac onlay bone grafts in the facial skeleton: A macroscopic and histomorphometric study. J Craniofac Surg1995;6(2):113–9.
22.
CheneyMLGliklichRE. The use of calvarial bone in nasal reconstruction. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg1995;121(6):643–8.
23.
MoerningJEWolfordLM. Chin augmentation with various alloplastic materials: A comparative study. Int J Adult Orthod Orthog Surg1989;4(3):175–87.
24.
KentJNWestfallRLCarltonDM. Chin and zygomaticomaxillary augmentation with Proplast: Long-term follow-up. J Oral Surg1981;39:12–19.
25.
SpectorMFlemmingWRSarverBW. Early tissue infiltrate in porous polyethylene implants in bone: A scanning electron microscope study. J Biomed Mater Res1957;9(5):537–42.
26.
SkinnerHBShackelfordJRLinHJ. Tensile strength of bone (bone/porous polyethylene) interface. Biomat Med Dev Art Org1979;7(1):133–8.
27.
CesteroHJJrSalyerKE. Bone growth into porous carbon, polyethylene, and polypropylene prostheses. J Biomed Mater Res Symp1975;6:1–7.
