Titanium or Biodegradable Osteosynthesis in Maxillofacial Surgery?:In Vitro and In Vivo Performances

Osteosynthesis systems are used to fixate bone segments in maxillofacial surgery. Titanium osteosynthesis systems are currently the gold standard. However, the disadvantages result in symptomatic removal in up to 40% of cases. Biodegradable osteosynthesis systems, composed of degradable polymers, could reduce the need for removal of osteosynthesis systems while avoiding the aforementioned disadvantages of titanium osteosyntheses. However, disadvantages of biodegradable systems include decreased mechanical properties and possible foreign body reactions. In this review, the literature that focused on the in vitro and in vivo performances of biodegradable and titanium osteosyntheses is discussed. The focus was on factors underlying the favorable clinical outcome of osteosyntheses, including the degradation characteristics of biodegradable osteosyntheses and the host response they elicit. Furthermore, recommendations for clinical usage and future research are given. Based on the available (clinical) evidence, biodegradable copolymeric osteosyntheses are a viable alternative to titanium osteosyntheses when applied to treat maxillofacial trauma, with similar efficacy and significantly lower symptomatic osteosynthesis removal. For orthognathic surgery, biodegradable copolymeric osteosyntheses are a valid alternative to titanium osteosyntheses, but a longer operation time is needed. An osteosynthesis system composed of an amorphous copolymer, preferably using ultrasound welding with well-contoured shapes and sufficient mechanical properties, has the greatest potential as a biocompatible biodegradable copolymeric osteosynthesis system. Future research should focus on surface modifications (e.g., nanogel coatings) and novel biodegradable materials (e.g., magnesium alloys and silk) to address the disadvantages of current osteosynthesis systems

Efficacy and morbidity of biodegradable versus titanium osteosyntheses in orthognathic surgery:A systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

Titanium osteosynthesis is currently the gold standard in orthognathic surgery. Use of biodegradable osteosyntheses avoids removal of plates/screws in a second operation. This systematic review aimed to assess the efficacy and morbidity of biodegradable vs. titanium osteosyntheses in orthognathic surgery (PROSPERO CRD42018086477). Patients with syndromic disorder(s) and/or cleft lip/palate were excluded. Randomised, prospective and retrospective controlled studies were searched for in nine databases (February 2021). The time periods perioperative, short‐term, intermediate, long‐term, and overall follow‐up were studied. Meta‐analyses were performed using random‐effects models. A total of 9073 records was assessed, of which 33 were included, comprising 2551 patients. Seven RCTs had ‘some concerns’ while another seven RCTs had ‘high’ risk of bias (Cochrane‐RoB2). No differences in malunion (qualitative analyses), mobility of bone segments [RR 1.37 (0.47; 3.99)], and malocclusion [RR 0.93 (0.39; 2.26)] were found. The operative time was longer in the biodegradable group [SMD 0.50 (0.09; 0.91)]. Symptomatic plate/screw removal was comparable among both groups [RR 1.29 (0.68; 2.44)]. Skeletal stability was similar in most types of surgery. Biodegradable osteosyntheses is a valid alternative to titanium osteosyntheses for orthognathic surgery, but with longer operation times. Since the quality of evidence varied from very low to moderate, high‐quality research is necessary to elucidate the potential of biodegradable osteosyntheses

Reliability and accuracy of the torque applied to osteosynthesis screws by maxillofacial surgeons and residents

Applying the right torque to osteosynthesis screws is important for undisturbed bone healing. This study aimed to compare test-retest and intra-individual reliabilities of the torque applied to 1.5 mm and 2.0 mm osteosynthesis screws by residents and oral and maxillofacial surgeons (OMF-surgeons), to define the reference torque intervals, and to compare reference torque interval compliances. Five experienced OMF-surgeons and 20 residents, 5 of each 4 residency years, were included. Each participant inserted six 1.5 x 4 mm and six 2.0 x 6 mm screws into a preclinical model at two test moments 2 weeks apart (T1 and T2). Participants were blinded for the applied torque. Descriptive statistics, reference intervals, and intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated. The OMF-surgeons complied more to the reference intervals (1.5 mm screws: 95% and 2.0 mm screws: 100%) than the residents (82% and 90%, respectively; P = 0.009 and P = 0.007) with the ICCs ranging between 0.85-0.95 and 0.45-0.97, respectively. The residents' accuracy and reliability were inadequate regarding the 1.5 mm screws but both measures improved at T2 for both screw types compared to T1, indicating a learning effect. Training residents and/or verifying the applied torque by experienced OMF-surgeons remains necessary to achieve high accuracy and reliability, particularly for 1.5 mm screws

Comparison of the mechanical properties of biodegradable and titanium osteosynthesis systems used in oral and maxillofacial surgery

To guide the selection of osteosynthesis systems, this study compared the mechanical properties of biodegradable and titanium osteosynthesis systems. SonicPins Rx and xG were subjected to pull-out tests. Additionally, 15 biodegradable (Inion CPS 2.0 and 2.5 mm; LactoSorb 2.0 mm; Macropore 2.0 mm; Polymax 2.0 mm; BioSorb FX 2.0 mm; ResorbX 2.1 mm; Osteotrans-MX 2.0 mm with plate thicknesses 1.0 and 1.4 mm; SonicWeld Rxplate/Rxpins, xGplate/Rxpins and xGplate/xGpins 2.1 mm without and with tapping the burr hole) and six titanium (CrossDrive (2006), CrossDrive (2018), MaxDrive; all 1.5 and 2.0 mm) straight, four-hole osteosynthesis systems were evaluated. All systems were subjected to tensile, bending and torsion tests. Pull-out loads of the SonicPins were comparable (P = 0.423). Titanium systems’ tensile loads were higher than biodegradable systems (P < 0.001). CrossDrive (2018) and MaxDrive systems’ tensile and torsional stiffness were lower, accompanied with higher ductility, than corresponding CrossDrive (2006) systems (P < 0.001). Bending stiffness of 1.5 mm titanium systems was comparable to, and of the 2.0 mm systems higher than, all biodegradable systems (P < 0.001). Regarding biodegradable systems, Inion CPS 2.5 mm had highest tensile load and torsional stiffness, SonicWeld 2.1 mm highest tensile stiffness, and BioSorbFX 2.0 mm highest bending stiffness (P < 0.001). On the basis of the results of this study, the CrossDrive (2018) and MaxDrive 1.5 mm titanium systems are recommended for midface fractures (e.g., zygomatic or maxillary fractures) and osteotomies (e.g., Le Fort I osteotomy), and the CrossDrive (2018) and MaxDrive 2.0 mm titanium systems for mandibular fractures and osteotomies when a titanium osteosynthesis system is used. When there is an indication for a biodegradable osteosynthesis system, the SonicWeld 2.1 mm or BioSorbFX 2.0 mm are recommended for midface fractures and osteotomies, and the Inion CPS 2.5 mm biodegradable system for mandibular osteotomies and non-load bearing mandibular fractures, especially when high torsional forces are expected (e.g., mandibular symphysis fractures)

Lack of Conventional Acinar Cells in Parotid Salivary Gland of Patient Taking an Anti-PD-L1 Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor

Background: Salivary glands (SGs) can be damaged by immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy. In patients with ICI-induced SG dysfunction, 60% progress to fulfill classification criteria for primary Sjogren's syndrome (pSS), owing to immune foci in SGs and/or anti-SSA autoantibody positivity. We report the SG tissue analysis of a patient with SG dysfunction after treatment with a programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) inhibitor, compared to that of a dry mouth ("sicca") control and pSS patient. Case presentation: The patient received the PD-L1 inhibitor durvalumab (10 mg/kg, every 2 weeks by intravenous infusion) as adjuvant treatment for stage 3 non-small cell lung carcinoma, following concurrent chemo radiotherapy. At 43 weeks after 21 cycles of Durvalumab, the patient was not capable of producing unstimulated or stimulated parotid gland saliva, and a biopsy was taken. Immunohistochemical analysis showed no classical AQP5(+) CK7(-) acinar cell clusters (CK7 marks intercalated ducts, IDs). In contrast, the parenchyma was dominated by hybrid epithelial "structures" with ID-like morphology, containing a mixture of AQP5(+)CK7(-), AQP5(-)CK7(+), and AQP5(+)CK7(+) cells (30 structures/mm(2)). These structures were present at lower frequencies in sicca control (2/mm(2)) and pSS (10/mm(2)) tissue. Hybrid structures contained proliferating (Ki67(+)) cells and senescent (p16(+)) cells. Striated ducts showed no abnormal morphology post PD-L1 treatment, in contrast to pSS tissue. PD-L1 expression was detected in the SG parenchyma following anti-PD-L1 therapy. The SG post-PD-L1 therapy further demonstrated focal lymphocytic sialadentitis, harboring disperse, and focal CD4(+) T cell-rich infiltrates. CD8(+) T cells were also present. In this patient, these CD4(+) and CD8(+) T cells were observed in-between and inside hybrid structures. CD20(+) B-cells were infrequently detected following PD-L1 blockade, in contrast to their preponderance in pSS SG tissue. Conclusion: This patient lacked conventional SG acinar cells following anti-PD-L1 therapy and demonstrated presence of hybrid intercalated duct-like structures. Understanding which mechanisms and dynamics underpinning this aberrant parenchyma may be crucial to understand how SG dysfunction post ICI therapy, and potentially other affected organs. Furthermore, although the patient treated with anti-PD-L1 antibody examined here fulfills the criteria for pSS and demonstrated focal lymphocytic sialadentitis, the further histopathological characteristics do not resemble pSS

Biocompatibility and degradation comparisons of four biodegradable copolymeric osteosynthesis systems used in maxillofacial surgery:A goat model with four years follow-up

Applying biodegradable osteosyntheses avoids the disadvantages of titanium osteosyntheses. However, foreign-body reactions remain a major concern and evidence of complete resorption is lacking. This study compared the physico-chemical properties, histological response and radiographs of four copolymeric biodegradable osteosynthesis systems in a goat model with 48-months follow-up. The systems were implanted subperiosteally in both tibia and radius of 12 Dutch White goats. The BioSorb FX [poly(70LLA-co-30DLLA)], Inion CPS [poly([70-78.5]LLA-co-[16-24]DLLA-co-4TMC)], SonicWeld Rx [poly(DLLA)], LactoSorb [poly(82LLA-co-18GA)] systems and a negative control were randomly implanted in each extremity. Samples were assessed at 6-, 12-, 18-, 24-, 36-, and 48-month follow-up. Surface topography was performed using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Differential scanning calorimetry and gel permeation chromatography were performed on initial and explanted samples. Histological sections were systematically assessed by two blinded researchers using (polarized) light microscopy, SEM and energy-dispersive X-ray analysis. The SonicWeld Rx system was amorphous while the others were semi-crystalline. Foreign-body reactions were not observed during the complete follow-up. The SonicWeld Rx and LactoSorb systems reached bone percentages of negative controls after 18 months while the BioSorb Fx and Inion CPS systems reached these levels after 36 months. The SonicWeld Rx system showed the most predictable degradation profile. All the biodegradable systems were safe to use and well-tolerated (i.e., complete implant replacement by bone, no clinical or histological foreign body reactions, no [sterile] abscess formation, no re-interventions needed), but nanoscale residual polymeric fragments were observed at every system's assessment

A new tool to assess Clinical Diversity In Meta‐analyses (CDIM) of interventions

OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate Clinical Diversity In Meta-analyses (CDIM), a new tool for assessing clinical diversity between trials in meta-analyses of interventions.STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: The development of CDIM was based on consensus work informed by empirical literature and expertise. We drafted the CDIM tool, refined it, and validated CDIM for interrater scale reliability and agreement in three groups.RESULTS: CDIM measures clinical diversity on a scale that includes four domains with 11 items overall: setting (time of conduct/country development status/units type); population (age, sex, patient inclusion criteria/baseline disease severity, comorbidities); interventions (intervention intensity/strength/duration of intervention, timing, control intervention, cointerventions); and outcome (definition of outcome, timing of outcome assessment). The CDIM is completed in two steps: first two authors independently assess clinical diversity in the four domains. Second, after agreeing upon scores of individual items a consensus score is achieved. Interrater scale reliability and agreement ranged from moderate to almost perfect depending on the type of raters.CONCLUSION: CDIM is the first tool developed for assessing clinical diversity in meta-analyses of interventions. We found CDIM to be a reliable tool for assessing clinical diversity among trials in meta-analysis.</p