Reconstructive Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery


This chapter addresses:

  • Posterior Mandibular Augmentation

  • Radial Forearm Free Flap

  • Pectoralis Major Myocutaneous Flap

  • Free Fibula Flap for Mandibular Reconstruction

  • Mandibular Reconstruction with Iliac Crest Bone Graft

The term reconstructive maxillofacial surgery refers to the wide range of procedures designed to rebuild or enhance soft or hard tissue structures of the maxillofacial region. Ablative tumor surgery (benign or malignant) and traumatic injuries (especially avulsive) commonly demand reconstructive procedures to restore the functional and cosmetic deficit. Loss of soft or hard tissue secondary to infectious processes (e.g., osteomyelitis), or tissue injury due to irradiation (e.g., osteoradionecrosis) may also require reconstructive measures. In addition, the decrease in the quantity and quality of maxillomandibular structures with age (which may be accelerated by other processes, such as early loss of teeth) can be addressed with reconstructive measures to augment the tissue for restoration using dental implants.

In the past two decades, four developments have revolutionized the reconstruction of the maxillofacial structures. First, gains in our understanding of bone biology have allowed advanced bone grafting procedures in a variety of circumstances (e.g., sinus lift procedures, mandibular augmentation/reconstruction). Second, the advent of microvascular free flap techniques has enabled the transfer of tissue to reconstruct large soft and/or hard tissue defects (e.g., radial forearm fasciocutaneous or fibula osteocutaneous free flaps). Third, the development of and advances in dental implant techniques have allowed successful dental rehabilitation. Fourth, the introduction of computer-aided surgery, using CT-generated images and virtual surgery, has significantly changed the practice of reconstructive surgery. Future research may reveal improved methods of regenerating bone, neural, and muscle tissue. Future molecular biology techniques using gene therapy may provide knowledge that can be applied to maxillofacial reconstruction.

In this chapter, we present important teaching cases that describe some of the main issues in maxillofacial reconstruction. Mandibular reconstruction remains one of the greatest challenges in maxillofacial surgery. We present cases of mandibular reconstruction using corticocancellous bone grafts with implants and other cases using the free fibula osteocutaneous flap.

Posterior Mandibular Augmentation

William Stuart McKenzie
Patrick J. Louis

CC

A 69-year-old Caucasian male presents for evaluation for dental implants. He states, “I am interested in getting implants.”

HPI

The patient was referred by his general dentist for extraction of periodontally involved teeth and evaluation for implant placement. He reports that he has difficulty chewing his food due to discomfort and mobility of several of his posterior teeth.

PMHX/PSHX/Medications/Allergies/SH/FH

The patient reports hypercholesterolemia, prostatic hypertrophy, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), chronic neck pain, and chronic rhinitis/sinusitis. His current medications include aspirin 81 mg, fenofibrate, alfuzosin, and omeprazole. The past surgical history includes a hernia repair. The patient reports allergies to tramadol and hydrocodone. He also reports a history of cigarette smoking but quit 10 years ago. He denies alcohol and illicit drug use. The family history is negative for heart disease, diabetes, and head and neck malignancy.

Examination

General. The patient is a well-nourished, well-developed 69-year-old Caucasian male in no apparent distress.

Vital signs. Blood pressure is 156/87 mm Hg, heart rate 69 bpm, respiratory rate 16 per minute, and temperature 37°C.

Maxillofacial. Normocephalic. Skin is dry and intact, pupils equal, round, and reactive to light and accommodation (PERRLA), no scleral icterus, visual acuity grossly intact, external auditory canals clear bilaterally, tympanic membranes intact, nares patent, cranial nerves II through XII grossly intact bilaterally. Neck is supple and without lymphadenopathy.

Intraoral. Mucosa is moist and pink. No ulcers, masses, or discolorations of the oral cavity noted. Teeth #3, #11 through #15, #19, #20, and #30 are absent. Generalized periodontal disease is noted with root exposure on teeth #2, #4, #18, #21, #28, and #30. A buccal horizontal defect is present at teeth #19, #20, and #30.

Imaging

Panoramic radiograph reveals no pathologic findings of the sinuses, maxilla, temporomandibular joints, or mandible. There is pneumatization of bilateral maxillary sinuses and generalized periodontal disease with periapical radiolucency at teeth #18, #28, and #31.

Labs

No labs are indicated at this time.

Assessment

Caucasian male, 69 years old, with a history of hypercholesterolemia, prostatic hypertrophy, GERD, chronic neck pain, and chronic rhinitis/sinusitis presents for an evaluation for dental implant placement after extraction of periodontally involved teeth. The physical exam reveal s vertical insufficiency of the right mandibular and bilateral maxillary posterior alveolar ridges, in addition to a horizontal alveolar deficiency of the right mandibular posterior alveolar ridge ( Figure 12-1 ).

Figure 12-1, A, Initial panoramic radiograph showing generalized periodontal disease and insufficient height of bilateral maxillary and right mandibular posterior alveolar ridges for implant placement. B, Right posterior mandible showing severe periodontal disease and buccal horizontal defects at the posterior area.

Treatment

Alveolar deficiencies of the posterior mandible present unique surgical challenges. Defects must be accurately assessed for the horizontal and vertical deficiencies of bone and the amount of keratinized tissue available to support the final prosthesis. A host of reconstructive techniques and materials must be considered, and the most appropriate method selected to maximize the individual patient's outcome ( Figure 12-2 ). The success of endosteal implant restorations and prostheses has made augmentation of the posterior mandible a necessary skill for oral and maxillofacial surgeons. The use of titanium mesh, autogenous bone, allogeneic/xenogeneic bone, and inlay bone grafting is discussed later.

Figure 12-2, A, Panoramic radiograph showing titanium mesh placement for posterior ridge augmentation. A mixture of autogenous bone from a right mandibular torus, hydroxyapatite, and platelet-rich plasma was used under the mesh. B, Titanium mesh after 6 months of healing, with pseudomembrane intact. C, Implant placement at teeth #28, #29, and #30 after titanium mesh removal. D, Final panoramic radiograph showing right mandibular implants with restoration. The patient also underwent bilateral maxillary sinus lifts, right maxillary ridge split osteotomy, and implant placement at teeth #3, #5, #11, #12, #14, #18, and #20. E, Postoperative photograph showing restored posterior mandibular implants in function 8 years after placement.

Horizontal Defects

A horizontal defect is defined as an inadequate buccolingual dimension of bone with an adequate superoinferior dimension. Horizontal defects most commonly occur on the facial aspect of the mandible. Generally, implants 5 mm in diameter are placed in the molar region; this requires 7 to 8 mm of horizontal bone to ensure 1 to 1.5 mm of bone buccal and lingual to the implant.

Block Grafts

The autogenous block graft has been widely used for horizontal defects. The harvest site of the cortical bone depends largely on the length of bone required. For smaller defects, harvest from the mandibular symphysis or mandibular ramus allows for easy access with low long-term morbidity. However, temporary V3 paresthesia has been reported in 10% to 50% of symphysis grafts, and 0 to 5% of ramus grafts. For larger defects, distant harvest sites of bone are necessary. The calvarial graft, taken from the parietal bone, provides dense cortical bone that is resistant to resorption. Harvesting a split-thickness graft from this region provides an approximately 3-mm-thick segment of bone, and the harvest site has few complications. The ilium may also be used; however, the cortical bone is thinner and less resistant to resorption due to the endochondral origin of the ilium, compared with the intramembranous origin of the parietal bone. However, a large amount of bone may be harvested from the iliac crest. The main complications of iliac crest bone grafts include gait disturbances, paresthesia, hematoma/seroma, and fracture of the hip.

The use of block allografts has been presented in case series. Nissen and colleagues placed 29 cancellous block allografts in 21 patients with posterior mandibular atrophy; the graft failure rate was 20.7%, and the implant survival rate in the remaining grafts was 95.2% at 37-month follow-up. However, long-term outcomes for allogeneic block grafts from prospective, randomized clinical trials are lacking. A systematic review by Waasdorp and Reynolds found only nine articles that met inclusion criteria, and eight of the articles were case reports or case series. The authors concluded that, although the case reports demonstrated potential for allogeneic block grafts for alveolar ridge augmentation, there is insufficient evidence to establish treatment efficacy with regard to graft stability and long-term implant survival.

Procedure.

The defect site is exposed using a crestal incision. The defect is then measured for the size of the graft needed. The appropriate-sized block graft is harvested from the donor site and is contoured to approximate the defect. The facial surface of the defect site also is contoured to allow for maximum surface area contact with the graft. Multiple sites of decortication are created on the defect site with a small round bur to promote neovascularization of the graft. The graft is secured with one or two resorbable or titanium screws. Particulate bone is packed into any gaps, and the site is covered with a resorbable or nonresorbable membrane. Tension-free closure is obtained using a periosteal releasing incision if necessary.

Particulate Bone

Particulate bone graft material is available from a wide array of sources, including autografts (from the patient), allografts (from a human donor), xenografts (from an animal donor), and alloplastic material (synthetic material). Autogenous particulate bone may be harvested from intraoral sites, including cortical shaving from the symphysis, ramus, or zygoma, and cancellous bone can be harvested from the ilium or tibia. Autogenous bone is often combined with banked particulate bone; this increases the volume of graft material while maintaining the osteogenic and osteoinductive properties of the autogenous bone. The choice of graft material depends on the amount of particulate bone needed, osteoinductive versus osteoconductive properties, and the desires of the patient. Whether the graft is mineralized or demineralized determines the type of membrane required for graft stabilization. In general, mineralized particulate bone is able to better withstand the forces exerted on the surgical site during healing, requiring only a nonrigid membrane at the time of graft placement. Demineralized bone, however, requires a rigid membrane during the healing phase. Titanium mesh is well suited to protecting demineralized bone and can tolerate exposure to the oral cavity without a significant rate of graft failure. The titanium mesh is contoured and adapted to the alveolar ridge and secured with titanium screws.

Procedure.

A crestal or vestibular incision is used to expose the defect. Decortication of the defect is performed using a small round bur. The particulate graft is placed. If a nonrigid membrane is used, the edges are trimmed and tucked underneath the flaps. If a rigid membrane is used, the membrane is contoured, packed with particulate bone, and then secured with screws to prevent movement. Tension-free closure is obtained using a periosteal releasing incision if necessary. The vestibular incision usually allows for tension-free closure without release of the periosteum.

Inlay Bone Graft

First described by Simion and colleagues in 1992, the alveolar split osteotomy technique for horizontal bone defects and subsequent implant placement has shown predictable results. The surgery is usually performed in a two-stage fashion in the mandible due to the dense cortical buccal plate. At least 3 mm of horizontal width is preferred for a controlled fracture; however, widths as narrow as 2 mm have been reported. The goal of the technique is to produce a vascularized bone flap through controlled fracture of the buccal plate. The gap produced by the fracture at the second stage can then be grafted with block or particulate bone, or implants can be placed along with a particulate graft. A membrane is generally used to protect the graft and implants during healing.

Procedure.

The initial surgery requires a full-thickness flap to expose the buccal cortical plate. A crestal incision with releasing incisions away from the planned corticotomy sites is used. Crestal, apical, and two vertical corticotomies are performed and connected to create an outline of the intended bone flap. A piezoelectric drill is often used to preserve bone. The mucosal flap is then sutured. Stage 2 is performed after approximately 4 weeks; with this interval, the periosteal blood supply to the bone is restored, but callus is still present at the corticotomy sites. The crestal incision is made along the crestal corticotomy, with care taken to reflect as little periosteum as possible. Osteotomes are used to gently out-fracture the bone flap. The bone graft and/or implants can then be placed. Primary closure can be attempted using a periosteal releasing incision, but primary closure is often difficult, requiring the use of a membrane. If implants are not placed, 4 to 6 months of healing is allowed before implant placement.

Vertical Defects

Vertical defects of the posterior mandible refer to inadequate height of alveolar bone in relation to the inferior alveolar nerve. Vertical defects can be challenging to treat due to a small surface area of crestal mandibular bone for onlay grafting, difficulty with exposure of the graft due to tension of the soft tissue after augmentation, and resorption of graft material. Techniques described include onlay grafting, particulate bone grafts, inlay grafts, and distraction osteogenesis.

In performed a Cochrane systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for horizontal and vertical ridge augmentation. Of the 13 trials that met the inclusion criteria, 10, enrolling 218 patients, addressed vertical ridge augmentation. Analysis of the trials found that vertical augmentation resulted in a high complication rate (20% to 60%) and graft failure rates of 10% to 15%. Interestingly, two split-mouth trials compared alloplastic grafting (anorganic bovine bone and Regenaform, respectively) with autogenous bone grafting (iliac crest and particulate bone) and showed no statistical difference in outcomes. Although both studies had small sample sizes (10 and 5 patients), the reduction in operative time, cost, and patient discomfort certainly justify further investigation. The review also included a meta-analysis of two RCTs examining mandibular ridge augmentation (iliac crest inlay graft and anorganic bovine inlay) versus short implant placement without augmentation. The meta-analysis showed an increased implant failure rate (borderline significance; p = 0.06), and a statistically significant increase in the complication rate in the augmented group. The additional time, cost (e.g., general anesthesia, hospitalization), and patient discomfort are also important factors. However, the long-term outcomes of short implants in the posterior mandible have not been adequately evaluated to date.

Block Grafts

The use of onlay autogenous grafting for vertical augmentation has been widely described in the literature. One of the shortcomings of the onlay graft is resorption of the graft during healing. Studies using intraoral (symphysis and/or ramus) and posterior iliac crest have reported 17% to 41% resorption of the onlay graft at 4 to 6 months.

Procedure.

Autogenous block grafts for vertical augmentation can be harvested in a fashion identical to that previously described. A crestal incision is made, and the block is adapted to the alveolar defect and secured with titanium screws. Gaps are packed with particulate bone, and a membrane is placed. The incision is sutured over the graft after periosteal release for tension-free closure.

Particulate Bone

Particulate bone grafting for vertical deficiency has been shown to be effective when used with a rigid membrane or titanium mesh. The use of titanium mesh has been shown to be effective in the reconstruction of alveolar ridge defects, regardless of the particulate bone source. The titanium mesh acts as a permanent, rigid barrier that is biocompatible and easily molded to the desired shape. Several studies have demonstrated successful vertical augmentation (maxilla and mandible) using titanium mesh, with average vertical gains of 3.71 to 14 mm and implant success rates in the grafted area of 93% to 100%. Exposure of the titanium mesh during the healing phase is commonly reported, with a rate ranging from 5% to 52%. However, the rates of infection and graft failure remain low compared to other nonresorbable barriers. Watzinger and colleagues demonstrated that the timing of the mesh exposure is critical to the final outcome. If exposure occurred within 4 to 6 weeks of the grafting procedure, graft take was poor. However, if exposure occurred after 4 to 6 weeks, these sites had outcomes similar to those for grafts that did not have exposure. Most areas of late exposure of titanium mesh (after 4 to 6 weeks) can be managed with local wound care; removal is required only if signs of infection are present.

Procedure.

The technique for particulate bone grafting was described previously in the section on particulate bone grafting for horizontal deficiency.

Inlay Graft

Inlay grafting, or “sandwich” osteotomy, provides the advantage of having a pedicled segment of alveolar bone overlying the graft material. Felice and colleagues demonstrated significantly less bone resorption of the inlay graft, compared to onlay grafting of anterior iliac crest bone, in 20 patients. In another study by Felice, no statistical difference in outcomes was found for inlay grafts with anorganic bovine bone (Geistlich Bio-Oss [Geistlich Pharma North America, Inc., Princeton, N. J.]), compared with iliac crest bone, for vertical augmentation in the posterior mandible. The disadvantages of inlay grafting are the inability to address horizontal defects with the procedure and limitation of the amount of vertical augmentation by the lingual soft tissue pedicle to the mobilized alveolar segment. Additionally, there must be at least 4 mm of bone above the mandibular canal to preserve viability of the mobilized segment while avoiding damage to the nerve.

Procedure.

A vestibular incision is made, and a subperiosteal flap is raised to expose the buccal surface of the alveolar ridge. The crestal and lingual tissue is not reflected. A reciprocating saw and/or piezoelectric handpiece is used to create the horizontal and two vertical oblique osteotomies, with care taken not to damage the lingual tissue. The horizontal osteotomy should be at least 2 mm superior to the mandibular canal, and the alveolar segment should ideally be at least 3 mm tall to tolerate the placement of titanium screws without fracturing. The bone graft is placed, and the transported and basal mandibular segments are plated with titanium miniplates and screws, thus stabilizing the graft. Gaps are filled with particulate bone, and the vestibular incision is closed. A healing period of 3 to 4 months is allowed before the hardware is removed and implants are placed.

Discussion

With the growing popularity of implant restorations, mandibular ridge augmentation has become a necessary skill for oral and maxillofacial surgeons. The posterior mandible can be a particularly difficult area to successfully augment due to the unique anatomy of the area. A thorough understanding of surgical techniques and bone grafting options is vital to maximizing the final functional and esthetic outcomes for the patient ( Figure 12-3 ).

Figure 12-3, A, A 59-year-old Caucasian male with left posterior mandibular vertical deficiency. B, Completion of osteotomy for inlay graft (sandwich osteotomy technique). C, Mobilization of the mandibular alveolar segment. A block of allograft bone was used without fixation for the interpositional graft. D, Postoperative panoramic radiograph with block graft in place, showing adequate height for implant placement in left posterior mandible.

Bibliography

  • Bell RB, Blakey GH, White RP, et. al.: Stages reconstruction of the severely atrophic mandible with autogenous bone graft and endosteal implants. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2002; 60: pp. 1135.
  • Chiapasco M, Abati S, Romeo E, et. al.: Clinical outcome of autogenous bone blocks or guided bone regeneration with e-PTFE membranes for the reconstruction of narrow edentulous ridges. Clin Oral Implants Res 1999; 10: pp. 278-288.
  • Clavero J, Lundgren S: Ramus or chin grafts for maxillary sinus inlay and local onlay augmentation: comparison of donor site morbidity and complications. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2003; 5: pp. 154-160.
  • Cordaro L, Amade DS, Cordaro M: Clinical results of alveolar ridge augmentation with mandibular block bone grafts in partially edentulous patients prior to implant placement. Clin Oral Implants Res 2002; 13: pp. 103.
  • Corinaldesi G, Pieri F, Sapigni L, et. al.: Evaluation of survival and success rates of dental implants placed at the time of or after alveolar ridge augmentation with an autogenous mandibular bone graft and titanium mesh: a 3- to 8-year retrospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2009; 24: pp. 1119-1128.
  • Esposito M, Grusovin MG, Felice P, et. al.: The efficacy of horizontal and vertical bone augmentation procedures for dental implants: a Cochrane systematic review. Eur J Oral Implantol 2009; 2: pp. 167-184.
  • Felice P, Pistilli R, Lizio G, et. al.: Inlay versus onlay iliac bone grafting in atrophic posterior mandible: a prospective controlled clinical trial for the comparison of two techniques. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2009; 11: pp. e69-82.
  • Felice P, Marchetti C, Iezzi G, et. al.: Vertical ridge augmentation of the atrophic posterior mandible with interpositional bloc grafts: bone from the iliac crest vs bovine anorganic bone—clinical and histological results up to one year after loading from a randomized-controlled clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 2009; 20: pp. 1386-1393.
  • Her S: Titanium mesh as an alternative to a membrane for ridge augmentation. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2012; 70: pp. 803-810.
  • Louis P, Gutta R, Said-Al Naief N, et. al.: Reconstruction of the maxilla and mandible with particulate bone graft and titanium mesh for implant placement. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2008; 66: pp. 235-245.
  • Louis P: Bone grafting the mandible. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am 2011; 23: pp. 209-227.
  • Mertens C, Decker C, Seeberger R, et. al.: Early bone resorption after vertical bone augmentation: a comparison of calvarial and iliac grafts. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013; 24: pp. 820-825.
  • Nissen J, Ghelfan O, Mardinger O, et. al.: Efficacy of cancellous block allograft augmentation prior to implant placement in the posterior atrophic mandible. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2011; 13: pp. 279-285.
  • Pieri F, Corinaldesi G, Fini M, et. al.: Alveolar ridge augmentation with titanium mesh and a combination of autogenous bone and anorganic bovine bone: a 2-year prospective study. J Periodontol 2008; 79: pp. 2093-2103.
  • Proussaefs P, Lozada J: The use of intraorally harvested autogenous block grafts for vertical alveolar ridge augmentation: a human study. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2005; 25: pp. 351.
  • Proussaefs P, Lozada J, Kleinman A, et. al.: The use of ramus autogenous block grafts for vertical alveolar ridge augmentation and implant placement: a pilot study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2002; 17: pp. 238.
  • Roccuzzo M, Ramieri G, Spada MC, et. al.: Vertical alveolar ridge augmentation by means of a titanium mesh and autogenous bone grafts. Clin Oral Implants Res 2004; 15: pp. 73-81.
  • Roccuzzo M, Ramieri G, Bunino M, et. al.: Autogenous bone graft alone or associated with titanium mesh for vertical alveolar ridge augmentation: a controlled clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 2007; 18: pp. 286-294.
  • Simion M, Baldoni M, Zaffe D: Jawbone enlargement using immediate implant placement associated with a split-crest technique and guided tissue regeneration. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 1992; 12: pp. 462-473.
  • Tolstunov L, Hicke B: Horizontal augmentation through the ridge-split procedure: a predictable surgical modality in implant reconstruction. J Oral Implantol 2013; 39: pp. 59-68.
  • Waasdorp J, Reynolds MA: Allogeneic bone onlay grafts for alveolar ridge augmentation: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2010; 25: pp. 525-531.
  • Watzinger F, Luksch J, Millesi W, et. al.: Guided bone regeneration with titanium membranes: a clinical study. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2000; 38: pp. 312-315.

Radial Forearm Free Flap

Jonathan Shum
Tuan G. Bui
Samuel Bobek
R. Bryan Bell

You're Reading a Preview

Become a Clinical Tree membership for Full access and enjoy Unlimited articles

Become membership

If you are a member. Log in here