Search

Objective: This study aims to validate the standardized procedure for designing soft tissue substitutes (STS) adapted to optimally fit single‐tooth defects in the anterior jaws and double‐tooth defects in the posterior jaw and to compare mathematically modeled average shapes. Materials and Methods: Casts from 35 patients with 17 single‐tooth defects in anterior region and 21 double‐tooth defects in posterior region were scanned. STS were designed and sectioned in 3D slices meshes. Thickness values were documented respecting mesial‐distal and buccal‐lingual orientations. Graphs were embedded into images, and hierarchical clustering was applied to group STS according to shape and thickness. Results: STS clustered into two groups per defect type. For anterior single defects, STS (n = 4) were either a small and thin oval: 7 mm buccal‐lingual, 4–5 mm mesial‐distal direction and 1.1–1.5 mm thick or a larger oval (n = 13): 9 mm buccal‐lingual, 5–7 mm mesial‐distal and 1.6 m thick. For posterior double tooth defects, STS (n = 10) were either narrow, long and thick: 6–7 mm buccal‐lingual, 16–20 mm mesial‐distal and 2.2 thick or a wide, thinner rectangle (n = 11): 9–11 mm buccal‐lingual, 12–14 mm mesial‐distal and 1.1–1.5 mm thick. Conclusions: The study validated the standardized digital method to design grafts for soft tissue volume augmentation and identified four average shapes for anterior single‐tooth and posterior double‐tooth soft tissue defects. Clinical Significance: We developed and validated a standardized digital method to design an optimal geometrical shape of a soft tissue substitute for oral volume augmentation and combined it with mathematical modeling to identify average shapes for single‐interior, and double‐posterior tooth defects. The identified average shapes offer the possibility to produce better‐fitted xenografts or synthetic STS blocks requiring minimal chair‐side adaptation leading to reduced clinical time and patient discomfort and potentially improving soft tissue volume augmentation outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As allogeneic musculoskeletal tissue is readily available, has minimal limitation in size or shape, and carries no donor site morbidity, it has become attractive for use in reconstructive shoulder surgery. Allograft is a viable option for treating osseous defects associated with glenohumeral instability and has been shown to achieve a stable shoulder with good clinical outcomes. Although there are mixed results on the use of allograft as rotator cuff augments or substitutes, new commercially processed materials such as GraftJacket are being tested to address the high failure rates associated with massive rotator cuff repair. Interposition arthroplasty as a treatment for glenohumeral arthritis in the young and active patient is a novel concept in which the arthritic glenoid is biologically resurfaced. Satisfactory results have been described using lateral meniscus and Achilles tendon allograft. Despite the promising reports on the use of allograft in reconstructive shoulder surgery, most of the published literature exists as retrospective, case reports. Additional large, controlled research is needed to prove the efficacy and safety of allograft tissue in the treatment of athletic injuries of the shoulder. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over the past few years, many biologic patches have been developed to augment repairs of large or complex tendon tears. These patches include both allograft and xenografts. Regardless of their origins, these products are primarily composed of purified type I collagen. Many factors should be considered when choosing an augmentation patch including tissue origin, graft processing, cross-linking, clinical experience, and physical properties. The purpose of this article is to familiarize the sports medicine community with several tendon augmentation grafts: GraftJacket (Wright Medical Technology, Arlington, TN), CuffPatch (Organogenesis, Canton, MA, licensed to Arthrotek, Warsaw, IN), Restore (Depuy, Warsaw, IN), Zimmer Collagen Repair (Permacol) patch (Tissue Science Laboratories Covington, GA, licensed to Zimmer, Warsaw, IN), TissueMend (TEI Biosciences, Boston, MA, licensed to Stryker Howmedica Osteonics, Kalamazoo, MI), OrthoADAPT (Pegasus Biologics, Irvine, CA), and BioBlanket (Kensey Nash, Exton, PA). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]