Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Bone replacement in head and neck surgery: a biocompatible alternative

I Cole1, N Dan, A Anker

  • 1Department of Otolaryngology, Head & Neck and Facio-Maxillary Surgery, Sutherland Hospital, Caringbah, Sydney, Australia.

The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Surgery
|July 1, 1996
PubMed
Summary

This article describes a new material used to repair skull defects in three patients. The material is a type of cement that bonds directly to bone without causing heat or shrinkage. It was used to fill gaps in the skull after surgeries involving the temporalis muscle, maxilla, and frontal sinus. The cement is easy to shape and hardens in place. After 12 months, no adverse effects were observed. The authors suggest this material is a safe and effective option for craniofacial reconstruction. It may be especially useful in complex cases where traditional grafts are not ideal.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Bioengineered polymeric mesh with imaging contrast for enhanced urogynaecological applications.

Biomaterials advances·2025
Same author

Free neurovascular toe-(joint)-transfers compared to alternative reconstructive procedures for amputation injuries of two and tripartite fingers with substance loss.

Clinical hemorheology and microcirculation·2023
Same author

Comparison of analog and digitally evaluated volume of the female breast in reconstructive breast surgery. Validation of a noninvasive measurement method with 3D camera1.

Clinical hemorheology and microcirculation·2022
Same author

Experimental and DFT studies on the ultrasonic energy-assisted extraction of the phytochemicals of <i>Catharanthus roseus</i> as green corrosion inhibitors for mild steel in NaCl medium.

RSC advances·2022
Same author

A favorable donor site in microsurgery: Nerve and vein graft harvest from the dorsum of the foot.

Clinical hemorheology and microcirculation·2021
Same author

A randomized study of a smartphone application compared with booklet to improve service user's knowledge of their legal rights.

Irish journal of psychological medicine·2018

Area of Science:

  • Craniofacial surgery
  • Biocompatible materials in orthopedic applications

Background:

Reconstructing skull defects remains a complex challenge in surgical practice. Established techniques have limitations in terms of integration and adaptability. Prior research has shown that autografts and allografts carry risks of donor site morbidity and rejection. No prior work had resolved the need for a material that bonds directly to bone without thermal or volumetric changes. This gap motivated the exploration of new synthetic alternatives. Alloplastic materials have been proposed for their potential to avoid immune responses. However, many such materials lack the mechanical properties required for craniofacial applications. This paper introduces a novel approach using a biocompatible cement with bone-like tensile strength.

Purpose Of The Study:

The aim of this clinical case series was to evaluate a new biocompatible material for skull reconstruction. The specific problem addressed is the need for a safe, easy-to-use material that bonds directly to bone. This study sought to demonstrate the material's utility in complex craniofacial defects. The motivation stems from the limitations of current grafting techniques. The researchers proposed to test the material in three distinct surgical scenarios. Each case represents a different type of bony defect requiring reconstruction. The goal was to assess the material's biocompatibility, ease of application, and long-term stability. The study focused on short-term outcomes following a 12-month follow-up period.

Keywords:
skull reconstructionbiocompatible materialsionocap cementtemporalis muscle defect

Frequently Asked Questions

The cement adheres firmly to bone and remains stable for at least 12 months with no adverse effects.

It is mixed as a two-component gel, shaped within 5 minutes, then contoured and drilled to fit the defect site.

It prevents thermal damage to surrounding tissues and avoids dimensional changes that could compromise the repair.

Temporalis muscle defects, maxillary walls, and the posterior wall of the frontal sinus were treated.

The material has tensile strength similar to native bone, as reported by the authors.

Related Experiment Videos

Main Methods:

The study involved three patients undergoing craniofacial reconstruction. The material used was a two-part glass-ionomer cement called Ionocap. The cement was mixed and shaped into a gel-like form within a 5-minute working window. It was then contoured and drilled to fit the defect site. The material was applied to the temporalis muscle defect, maxillary walls, and frontal sinus. No thermal changes or shrinkage occurred during setting. The cement was evaluated for biocompatibility and mechanical adherence. Outcomes were monitored for 12 months post-surgery. The study did not include control groups or randomized comparisons.

Main Results:

The material demonstrated strong adherence to bone without temperature or volume changes. It was successfully used to fill a temporalis muscle defect and maxillary walls. The posterior wall of the frontal sinus was also reconstructed effectively. Tensile strength measurements were comparable to native bone. No toxic effects were observed in any of the patients. The material remained stable and biocompatible over 12 months. No signs of rejection or adverse reactions were reported. The researchers suggest that the material is safe and suitable for craniofacial applications.

Conclusions:

The authors propose that this material offers a viable alternative for skull reconstruction. The material's biocompatibility and ease of use were confirmed in three distinct cases. The absence of adverse effects supports its safety profile. The material's mechanical properties make it suitable for craniofacial defects. The researchers suggest that it may be particularly useful in complex reconstructions. The 12-month follow-up period supports the material's long-term stability. The study does not claim the material is superior to all existing options. The findings suggest it is a promising addition to the reconstructive surgeon's toolkit.

The authors suggest the material is safe based on 12 months of follow-up with no adverse effects.