Purpose: The present study was undertaken to test bioresorbable fixation versus titanium for equivalence in terms of clinical union and complications using the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons parameters of care. The study design was a randomized, controlled, equivalence trial.

Materials And Methods: A total of 40 patients were enrolled and allocated to the titanium group and bioresorbable group using a computerized randomization table. All were plated using standard plating principles. In the bioresorbable group, 2 weeks of maxillomandibular fixation was also used. Evaluation of the study endpoint was done at 8 weeks postoperatively. For statistical analysis, the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval was calculated for failure to achieve the primary outcome variable and compared with the maximal clinically acceptable difference between the standard and test modalities in the failure to achieve clinical union (delta). Delta was predetermined as 2%. The other complications were tested for significance using Fisher's exact test.

Results: Of the 40 patients, 21 were in the titanium group and 19 were in the bioresorbable group, with 20 men and 1 woman in the titanium group and 18 men and 1 woman in the bioresorbable group. The mean age was 28.7 years in the titanium group and 26.6 years in the bioresorbable group. In the titanium group, the complications noted were nonunion in 0%, malocclusion in 7.7%, continued postoperative swelling in 0%, chronic pain in 2%, infection in 5.2%, an inability to chew hard food after 8 weeks in 7.7%, the need for alternative treatment in 0%, and the need for reoperation in 31%. In the bioresorbable group, the complications were nonunion in 4.17%, malocclusion in 11.1%, swelling in 8.3%, chronic pain in 37.5%, infection in 0%, an inability to chew hard food in 11.1%, the need for alternative treatment in 11.1%, and need for reoperation for plate removal in 0%.

Conclusions: The small sample size did not allow any meaningful conclusion to be drawn from the present study in terms of the primary question of achieving union. Both groups matched in outcomes when evaluated only on a clinical basis. The avoidance of repeat surgery for plate removal is a definite advantage of using resorbable plates. However, the results are inconclusive in favor of any particular plating system.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2009.09.005DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

bioresorbable group
24
titanium group
20
group
11
randomized controlled
8
bioresorbable
8
versus titanium
8
clinical union
8
group bioresorbable
8
failure achieve
8
group men
8

Similar Publications

Background: Bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) were developed to overcome limitations related to late stent failures of drug-eluting stents, but lumen reductions over time after implantation of BRS have been reported. This study aimed to investigate if lesion preparation with a scoring balloon compared with a standard noncompliant balloon minimizes lumen reduction after implantation of a Magmaris BRS assessed with optical coherence tomography and intravascular ultrasound.

Methods: Eighty-two patients with stable angina were randomized in a ratio of 1:1 to lesion preparation with a scoring balloon versus a standard noncompliant balloon before implantation of a Magmaris BRS.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Background: First-generation bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) increased risks of stent thrombosis and adverse events. The Bioheart scaffold is a new poly-L-lactic acid-based BRS.

Objectives: This study sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the BRS in patients with coronary artery disease.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Introduction And Objectives: Patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention in vessels with moderate-to-severe tortuosity are at higher risk of adverse outcomes, but data are scarce in the era of newer-generation stents. We compared outcomes following percutaneous coronary intervention in vessels with moderate-to-severe tortuosity using a bioresorbable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stent (BP-SES) vs a durable-polymer everolimus-eluting stent.

Methods: A total of 2350 patients from the BIOFLOW II, IV, and V randomized trials were stratified into 2 groups based on target-vessel tortuosity: none-to-mild and moderate-to-severe.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Comparative Analysis of Gelatin/Polylactic Acid and Commercial PLA Membranes for Guided Bone Regeneration: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Med Sci Monit

January 2025

Department of Oral Implantology, The Affiliated Stomatology Hospital, Jiangxi Medical College, Nanchang University, Jiangxi Province Key Laboratory of Oral Biomedicine, Jiangxi Province Clinical Research Center for Oral Disease, Nanchang, Jiangxi, China.

BACKGROUND This study included 32 patients with single missing teeth and alveolar bone defects and aimed to compare outcomes from guided bone regeneration with a gelatin/polylactic acid (GT/PLA) barrier membrane and a Guidor® bioresorbable matrix barrier dental membrane. MATERIAL AND METHODS A total of 32 participants were recruited in the clinical study, with single missing teeth and alveolar bone defects, requiring guided bone regeneration (32 missing teeth in total). They were randomly divided into the GT/PLA membrane group (experimental) and Guidor® membrane group (control) by the envelope method (n=16).

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Background: Adhesion formation poses a significant challenge for both patients and hand surgeons following tendon repair. One common strategy to prevent adhesion formation is the use of physical barriers. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of extensor tendon repair with and without the application of the OrthoWrap bioresorbable Sheet, specifically in terms of adhesion prevention.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!