J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg 2018; 44(3): 128~135
Maxillofacial reconstruction with Medpor porous polyethylene implant: a case series study
Mansour Khorasani, Pejman Janbaz, Farshid Rayati
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Qazvin University of Medical Sciences, Qazvin, Iran
Pejman Janbaz
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Qazvin University of Medical Sciences, Bahonar Blvd., Qazvin 3415759811, Iran
TEL: +98-9122810716 FAX: +98-2833353066
E-mail: pejmanjanbaz@yahoo.com
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0942-1325
Received March 5, 2017; Revised June 9, 2017; Accepted June 25, 2017.; Published online June 30, 2018.
© Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. All rights reserved.

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Objectives: The role of alloplastic materials in maxillofacial reconstruction is still controversial. Determining the utility of porous, high-density, polyethylene implants as a highly stable and flexible, porous alloplast, with properties such as rapid vascularization and tissue ingrowth, is crucial in cases of maxillofacial deformities and aesthetic surgery.
Materials and Methods: Thirty high-density porous polyethylene implants were implanted in 16 patients that had been referred to a private office over a three-year period. These implants were used for correcting congenital deformities, posttraumatic defects and improving the aesthetic in nasal, paranasal, malar, chin, mandibular angle, body and orbital areas.
Results: The outcomes of the cases in this study showed good aesthetic and functional results. The majority of patients had no signs of discomfort, rejection or exposure. Two implants suffered complications: a complicated malar implant was managed by antibiotic therapy, and an infected mandibular angle implant was removed despite antibiotic therapy.
Conclusion: Based on the results, the Medpor implant seems to be an excellent biomaterial for correcting various facial deformities. Advantages include its versatility and relatively ideal pore size that allows for excellent soft tissue ingrowth and coverage. It is strong, flexible and easy to shape.
Keywords: Maxillofacial prosthesis implantation, Reconstructive surgical procedures, Medpor

Current Issue

31 December 2018
Vol. 44
No. 6 pp. 249~302

Indexed in