The outcome of various cements in combination with titanium reconstruction plates after segmental resection of the mandible

Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2005 Aug;43(4):303-8. doi: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2004.11.017. Epub 2005 Jan 13.

Abstract

We report on 82 patients who had segmental resection of the mandible and immediate reconstruction with titanium plates, which were supplemented by polymethylmethacrylate cement (n=32), glass ionomer cement (n=27), silicone (n=9), or nothing (n=14). The mean (S.D.) follow-up time was 92 (26) months. Six months after operation, 27 (46%) of the plates with polymethylmethacrylate cement or glass ionomer cement were removed. During the same time period, four (28%) of the plates were removed in the group with no additional material and two (22%) in the group that had silicone. There was a significant difference in survival time of the metal between the group with silicone and the group with glass ionomer cement (p=0.014, log rank). Although silicone performed slightly better than the reconstruction plate on its own, we doubt whether any cement is necessary.

Publication types

  • Comparative Study

MeSH terms

  • Aluminum Silicates / chemistry*
  • Bone Cements / chemistry
  • Bone Plates*
  • Dimethylpolysiloxanes / chemistry*
  • Female
  • Gentamicins / chemistry*
  • Glass Ionomer Cements
  • Humans
  • Male
  • Mandible / surgery*
  • Mandibular Prosthesis
  • Mandibular Prosthesis Implantation / methods
  • Methylmethacrylates / chemistry*
  • Middle Aged
  • Retrospective Studies
  • Silicones / chemistry*
  • Titanium*
  • Treatment Outcome

Substances

  • Aluminum Silicates
  • Bone Cements
  • Dimethylpolysiloxanes
  • Gentamicins
  • Glass Ionomer Cements
  • Methylmethacrylates
  • Silicones
  • gentamicin-polymethylmethacrylate bead
  • polymaleinate ionomer
  • baysilon
  • Titanium