Search

Abstract Background The mandible is a functional bio-organ that supports facial structures and helps mastication and speaking. Large mandible defects, generally greater than 6-cm segment loss, may require composite tissue reconstruction such as osteocutaneous-vascularized free flap which has a limitation of additional surgery and a functional morbidity at the donor site. A 3D bio-printing technology is recently developed to overcome the limitation in the composite reconstruction of the mandible using osteocutaneous-vascularized free flap. Review Scaffold, cells, and bioactive molecules are essential for a 3D bio-printing. For mandibular reconstruction, materials in a 3D bio-printing require mechanical strength, resilience, and biocompatibility. Recently, an integrated tissue and organ printing system with multiple cartridges are designed and it is capable of printing polymers to reinforce the printed structure, such as hydrogel. Conclusion For successful composite tissue reconstruction of the mandible, biologic considerations and components should be presented with a comprehensive on-demand online platform model of customized approaches.

Abstract Background Peripheral nerve injury is one of the most common injuries that might occur in oral and maxillofacial surgery. The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of FK506 loaded with collagen membrane and fibrin glue on the promotion of nerve regeneration after traction nerve injury in a rat model. Methods Thirty male Sprague-Dawley rats were divided into three groups: group A (n = 10), a sham group whose sciatic nerve was exposed without any injury; and groups B (n = 10) and C (n = 10), which underwent traction nerve injury using 200 g of traction force for 1 min. The injured nerve in group C was covered with a collagen membrane soaked with FK506 (0.5 mg/0.1 mL) and fibrin glue. Functional analysis and microscopic evaluation were performed at 2 and 4 weeks after injury. Results The sciatic function index was − 5.78 ± 3.07 for group A, − 20.69 ± 5.22 for group B, and − 12.01 ± 4.20 for group C at 2 weeks after injury. However, at 4 weeks, the sciatic function index was − 5.58 ± 2.45 for group A, − 19.69 ± 4.81 for group B, and − 11.95 ± 1.94 for group C. In both periods, statistically significant differences were found among the groups (p