Reparo de falha palatina tratada com diferentes enxertos periostais
Repair of palate defect treated by different periosteal graft
Tosato, J.P.; Caria, P.H.F.; Camilli, J.A.
Rev. odontol. UNESP, vol.37, n1, p.27-31, 2008
Resumo
Alternativas para a continuidade óssea no reparo de fenda palatina têm sido pesquisadas, principalmente opções que substituam os problemas como enxerto de osso autógeno em osteoplastias no início do tratamento. O enxerto periosteal pode ser usado como um método alternativo, pois o alcance e a morbidade sobre o local doador são menores que o enxerto de osso autógeno. Proposta: Avaliar o potencial de reparação do enxerto periosteal do fêmur em defeito ósseo induzido na pré-maxila. Material e métodos: O defeito foi produzido na pré-maxila de ratos e dois grupos com 20 animais foram utilizados: 1º) tratados com o mucoperósteo da pré-maxila; e 2º) tratados com o periósteo do fêmur. Resultados: As radiografias, em ambos os grupos, não apresentaram sinais de formação óssea após 2, 4 e 8 semanas. Somente após dezesseis semanas houve evidência radiográfica com pontos de radiolucidez na margem do defeito, em ambos os grupos. Ocorreu proliferação celular em ambos os periósteos enxertados. O tecido ósseo cresceu a partir da margem do defeito em todos os casos, mas não houve total reparo do defeito. Conclusões: O retalho periosteal livre do fêmur, embora dezesseis semanas após a implantação não tenha promovido a total reparação da falha óssea provocada, apresentou sinais evidentes de favorecimento ao processo de reparo ósseo bem como impediu a migração dos tecidos adjacentes que limitariam esse processo.
Palavras-chave
Periósteo, regeneração óssea, fissura palatina
Abstract
Alternatives to bone continuity in cleft palate repair have been searched, mainly options to substitute problems with autogenous bone graft in osteoplasty in the beginning of the treatment. The periosteal graft can be used like an alternative method because the attainment and morbidity over the donor local is lower than autogenous bone graft. Propose: To investigate the potential of femur periosteal graft to repair an induced-maxillary bone defect. Materials and methods: a defect was produced in the premaxillary bone of rats and two groups with 20 animals were utilized: 1st) treated with the mucoperiosteal from the premaxilla; 2nd) treated with periosteal graft from femur. Results: The radiographic aspect in both groups showed no signs of bone formation after 2, 4 and 8 weeks. Only after sixteen weeks, there was radiographic evidence with points of radiolucency from the margin of the defect in both groups. Cell proliferation occurred from both periosteum types grafted. Bone tissue grew from margin to inner of the defects in all cases but have no total bone repair of the defect. Conclusions: The periosteal graft from the femur did not promote the total repair of the bone defect after sixteen weeks, but presented favorable sign
Keywords
Periosteum, bone regeneration, cleft palate
References
1. Morand B, Duroure F, Raphael B. The bony deficit in cleft lip and palate: review of procedures. Experience with the tibial periosteal graft. Orthod Fr. 2004;75:217-28. 2. Bonin B, Picard A, Stricker M. Developmente of the maxilla in patients with complete unilateral cleft palate surgically treated by a periosteal transplantation technic. A retrospective study of 15 surgical cases with an 18 year follow-up. Rev Stomatol Chir Maxillofac. 2001;102:162-8. 3. Raphael B, Morand B, Bettega G, Lesne C, Lesne V. Alveolar and hard palate repair by tibial periosteal graft in complete unilateral cleft lip and palate. Long-term followup 51 cases. Ann Chir Plast Esthet. 2002;47:196-203. 4. Takano-Yamamoto T, Kawakami M, Sakuda M. Effect of a pulsingeletromagnetic field on demineralized bonematrix induced bone formation in a bony defect in the premaxilla of rats. J Dent Res. 1992;71:1920-5. 5. Kostopoulus L, Karring T. Role of periosteum in the formation of jaw bone. An experiment in the rat. J Clin Periodontol. 1995;22:247-54. 6. Ransford AO, Morley T, Edgard MA, Webb P, Passiti N, Chopin D, et al. Synthetic porous ceramic compared with autograft in scoliosis surgery. J Bone Joint Surg. 1998;80:13–8. 7. Dailiana Z, Shiamishis G, Niokou D, Malizos KN. Vascularized periosteum: a n alternative to the reconstrution of small skeletal defects. J Hand Surg [Br] 2000;25(Suppl I):49-52. 8. Volegin MDE, Jones NF, Lieberman JR, Baker JM, Tsingotjidou BJH. Prefabrication of a vascularized periosteal flap and bone morphogenetic protein. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2002;109:190-8. 9. Rintala AE, Ranta R. Periosteal flaps and grafts in primary clefts repair: A follow-up. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1989;83:17-24. 10. Brownlon HC, Reed A, Joyner C, Simpson AHW. Anatomical effects of periosteal elevation. J Orthop Res. 2000;18:500-2. 11. Takano-Yamamoto T, Kawakami M, Sakuda M. Defects of the rat premaxilla as a model of alveolar clefts for testing bone-inductive agents. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1993;51:887–91. 12. Matzen M, Kostopoulos L, Karring T. Healing of osseous submucous cleft palates with guided bone regeneration. Scand J Plast Reconstr Hand Surg. 1996;30:161-7. 13. Barro WB, Latham RA. Palatal periosteal response to surgical trauma. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1981;67:6-8. 14. Ritsilä V, Alhopuro S, Gylling V, Rintala A. The use of free periosteum for bone formation in congenital clefts of the maxilla. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg. 1972;6:57- 60. 15. Ritsilä V, Alhopuro S, Rintala A. Bone formation with free periosteal grafts in reconstruction of congenital maxillary clefts. An Chirurg Gynaecol. 1976;65:342-44. 16. Uddströmer L, Ritsilä V. Osteogenic capacity of periosteal grafts. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg. 1978;12:207-14.
Facebook
Google+
Twitter
LinkedIn
Mendeley
StumbleUpon
CiteULike
Reddit
Email