from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3598710.stm
Last Updated: Friday, 27 August, 2004, 07:11 GMT 08:11 UK
New jaw grown on patient's back
The new bone was grown in a muscle on the patient's back
A German man has been able to eat his first proper meal in nine years
after surgeons rebuilt his face using a pioneering jaw-bone graft.
The 56-year-old man - who tucked into bread and sausages - had only
been able to eat soft food and soup since part of his jaw-bone was
removed due to cancer.
University of Kiel researchers "grew" a replacement jaw-bone in a
muscle in the patient's back and grafted it in place.
The procedure, previously only tried on animals, was detailed in The
Lancet.
The operation took place nine weeks ago, and the patient can now eat
steak - but it has to be cut up for him because he has no teeth to
bite through the meat.
The patient says he now wants a set of teeth fitted, so he can eat his
steak before it gets cold. Doctors say he could get them next year.
3D scans
In cases such as his, surgeons usually take a piece of bone from
elsewhere in the body, often the thigh, to repair the jaw.
But this damages the bone in that part of the body, which can itself
lead to serious illness.
A patient who had previously lost his mandible through the result of
a destructive tumour can now sit down to chew his first solid meals in
nine years
In this case, the patient's jaw had been bridged with a 7cm titanium
reconstruction plate since his initial operation.
He was also taking the blood-thinning drug warfarin for an aortic
aneurysm, which meant the traditional bone graft method carried a risk
of post-operative bleeding.
So it was decided to attempt the new technique.
After taking a 3D computer tomography (CT) scan of the patient's head,
they used computer aided design to recreate the missing portion of the
jaw-bone (mandible).
The design was used to construct a teflon model, which was then
covered with a titanium cage.
The teflon was then removed, and the cage filled with bone mineral
blocks, coated with bone marrow and a protein which accelerates bone
growth.
The transplant was then implanted into the latissimus dorsai muscle,
below the right shoulder blade.
Doctors monitored its development, and CT scans showed new bone was
forming.
After seven weeks of growth, the graft was removed, along with a flap
of muscle containing blood vessels.
It was then attached to the stumps of the patient's original lower
jaw.
The transplant enabled the patient to chew again, and within four
weeks he was able to eat solid foods.
'Quality of life'
The researchers, led by Dr Patrick Warnke of the Department of Oral
and Maxillofacial Surgery at the University of Kiel, say there is a
need for greater understanding about the long-term effects of the
procedure.
Writing in The Lancet, they said: "The exciting nature of the result
achieved in this patient to date has prompted our group to extend this
trial.
"For us to draw firm conclusions, an extended period of follow-up is
necessary."
But Dr Warnke told BBC News Online he hoped the procedure could help
many other patients, adding: "In addition to helping patients such as
this man, we hope it could be used in orthopaedic surgery."
He said implanting the cage into the patient's muscle meant his own
tissue developed around it.
"Because it was his own tissue, we don't expect any problems of
rejection."
He added: "It was a very successful operation, because when we fitted
it to his existing jaw, it was a very good fit, We didn't have to make
a lot of changes."
Dr Stan Gronthos, of the division of haematology at the Institute of
Medical and Veterinary Science in Adelaide, Australia, said the German
research proved this technique could help patients with damaged
jaw-bones.
He wrote in The Lancet: "Meanwhile, as the debate continues, a patient
who had previously lost his mandible through the result of a
destructive tumour can now sit down to chew his first solid meals in
nine years, courtesy of a new mandible-like structured implant,
resulting in an improved quality of life for that individual."
Joel M. Eichen - 28 Aug 2004 11:43 GMT
>from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3598710.stm
>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>been able to eat soft food and soup since part of his jaw-bone was
>removed due to cancer.
REPLY
If this were reported in Dental Economics, on the facing page would be
a full-page advertisement for Schultzes' Bratworst Sandwiches ......
>University of Kiel researchers "grew" a replacement jaw-bone in a
>muscle in the patient's back and grafted it in place.
[quoted text clipped - 94 lines]
>nine years, courtesy of a new mandible-like structured implant,
>resulting in an improved quality of life for that individual."
StovePipe - 28 Aug 2004 18:36 GMT
> >The 56-year-old man - who tucked into bread and sausages - had only
> >been able to eat soft food and soup since part of his jaw-bone was
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> If this were reported in Dental Economics, on the facing page would be
> a full-page advertisement for Schultzes' Bratworst Sandwiches ......
BEGIN: Rant
Ditto Dentistry Today or Dental Town. The latter two would approach the
presenters and get them to mention some of their sponsors and if they
could, they'd pressure them to change their stories to please their
sponsors. So sayeth Jeff Brucia wrt one of the above mentioned
publications. He was personally approached and propositioned. That is
when he launched into a rant about some of the other speakers in
Dentistry; two of whom are VERY well known to all of us. Much of what
they say is potentially good, but unproven. Often their recommendations
come from personal communications with others, but again, untested. The
three big testing and evaluating organizations that we have are
potentially meaningless. (Ex: L-Propt Adper bonding agent recieving 4
stars and then the population realizing IT DIDN'T EVEN WORK...). He said
that the only real creedence we should put on them is when all three
agree on any one product, and even then..... watch out.
He may be not the most charismatic speaker, but he does his OWN RESEARCH
and so has more credibility in my book. (Or in my iBook.... ;-) )
When I heard David Hornbrook speak in Mtl last year, he said that for
his money, the only reliable research results can be had by walking into
the test labs and shooting the breeze with the techs and engineers that
are doing the actual testing. He asks them: 'What would YOU recommend
for this, based on what you've seen here in the lab?' Often, the story
is not the same as when the results are sent upstairs to the PR
department.
This is why I would rather harass you all for your recommendations wrt
what works vs take my chances with polished *commercial* journals... And
lest you say that the CRA and Reality and Dental Advisor are not
commercial enterprises, I don't swallow that for a minute.
Whew....
OK
END: Rant

Signature
To reply: take out the TRASH...
W_B - 28 Aug 2004 22:46 GMT
>He said
>that the only real creedence
Clearwater ?
--
W_B
wubbabubbazG@RBAGEyahoo.com
Take out the G'RBAGE
Joel M. Eichen - 29 Aug 2004 00:01 GMT
>>He said
>>that the only real creedence
>
>Clearwater ?
Revival?
W_B - 29 Aug 2004 00:09 GMT
>>>He said
>>>that the only real creedence
>>
>>Clearwater ?
>
>Revival?
Good one !
--
W_B
wubbabubbazG@RBAGEyahoo.com
Take out the G'RBAGE
The Webby - 28 Aug 2004 16:36 GMT
What about the ramifications for failed knee, hip, and small finger
joints? The jawbone (mandibular section attached to remaining "stubs")
is not a joint. It seems they protected the muscles with a titanium
bridge of some sort. What I found truly amazing was that the muscles
were functional after all that radical surgery and time since the
surgery. That's as amazing to me as growing the bone, I suppose.
TW
> from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3598710.stm
>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> been able to eat soft food and soup since part of his jaw-bone was
> removed due to cancer.
[clip]
W_B - 28 Aug 2004 22:24 GMT
>What about the ramifications for failed knee, hip, and small finger
>joints? The jawbone (mandibular section attached to remaining "stubs")
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
>TW
TW you must consider 'weight bearing' joints as different from
'non-weight bearing' joints.
Fire one up chica !
--
W_B
wubbabubbazG@RBAGEyahoo.com
Take out the G'RBAGE
The Webby - 29 Aug 2004 04:42 GMT
Absolutely, W_B. The TMJ is a load bearing joint but it doesn't support
weight. Tell me more, W_B.
TW
> >What about the ramifications for failed knee, hip, and small finger
> >joints? The jawbone (mandibular section attached to remaining "stubs")
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> wubbabubbazG@RBAGEyahoo.com
> Take out the G'RBAGE
StovePipe - 29 Aug 2004 06:18 GMT
> Absolutely, W_B. The TMJ is a load bearing joint but it doesn't support
> weight. Tell me more, W_B.
W_B is not wrong here: a load bearing joint by def'n is one that
supports the patient's weight. If you stop to think about it, there's
not many real joints of the body that have no force on them. If you want
to expound upon this, I suggest you talk to a physiotherapist. There is
no better practitioner to show you the difference in pathologies in
these two very different joints.
Just a dork (I mean, thought)
S....P

Signature
To reply: take out the TRASH...
The Webby - 29 Aug 2004 07:24 GMT
No ...no ... I understand. I just don't see the technology that "grew"
the mandible being available all that soon to replace TMJs. I'm not
really interested in getting deeply into the topic because replacing a
section of bone such as that of the mandible is altogether different
than replacing TMJs by the same technology. I didn't start this thread
having to do with the ramifications...
But I appreciate the comments coming in. Thanks.
TW
> > Absolutely, W_B. The TMJ is a load bearing joint but it doesn't support
> > weight. Tell me more, W_B.
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> Just a dork (I mean, thought)
> S....P
StovePipe - 29 Aug 2004 16:50 GMT
> No ...no ... I understand. I just don't see the technology that "grew"
> the mandible being available all that soon to replace TMJs. I'm not
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> TW
.... I don't think you could reconstruct the TMJ with this technology.
You need a ball shaped piece of bone with a cartilege sheet over it.
That would be quite a feat of bio-engineering..
So sayeth the DORK
S====P

Signature
To reply: take out the TRASH...
The Webby - 29 Aug 2004 17:29 GMT
I suppose someday anything might be possible. But given the rare need
of such a thing, such research and development would likely be of
academic interest at best.
TW
> > No ...no ... I understand. I just don't see the technology that "grew"
> > the mandible being available all that soon to replace TMJs. I'm not
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> So sayeth the DORK
> S====P