BONE TISSUE RECONSTRUCTION AND MODERN PROSTHETIC METHODS
Ключевые слова:
biostatistics, functional restoration, implant-prosthesis integration, clinical follow-upАннотация
Bone defects after high-energy trauma disrupt load transfer, intensify pain, and delay return to movement, so the clinical choice between reconstruction and prosthetic sequencing remains important in orthopedic trauma care. The aim was to assess how bone tissue reconstruction and modern prosthetic methods influence functional recovery and pain reduction. Baseline and postoperative status were evaluated with clinical biostatistics and logistic regression. In the reconstruction group, the functional score increased from 39.6±7.8 to 78.4±8.1, whereas the comparison group improved from 40.1±7.5 to 66.2±7.9; pain scores fell from 71.3±8.6 mm to 18.7±6.4 mm in the reconstruction arm and from 70.9±8.9 mm to 29.8±7.1 mm in the comparator arm. The between-group difference remained statistically significant (p=0.009). Model discrimination reached 0.79, which suggests practical value for postoperative pathway selection. This study contributes a clinically grounded framework for implant-prosthesis integration as a strategy that supports stronger functional restoration and more effective pain control after major bone loss.
##plugins.themes.default.displayStats.downloads##
Библиографические ссылки
1. Giannoudis P.V., Dinopoulos H., Tsiridis E. Bone substitutes: an update // Injury. — 2005. — Vol.36, Suppl.3. — P. S20-S27. DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2005.07.029
2. Calori G.M., Mazza E., Colombo M., Ripamonti C. The use of bone-graft substitutes in large bone defects: any specific needs? // Injury. — 2011. — Vol.42, Suppl.2. — P. S56-S63. DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2011.06.011
3. Dimitriou R., Jones E., McGonagle D., Giannoudis P.V. Bone regeneration: current concepts and future directions // BMC Medicine. — 2011. — Vol.9. — P. 66. DOI: 10.1186/1741-7015-9-66
4. Oryan A., Alidadi S., Moshiri A., Maffulli N. Bone regenerative medicine: classic options, novel strategies, and future directions // Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research. — 2014. — Vol.9. — P. 18. DOI: 10.1186/1749-799X-9-18
5. Giannoudis P.V., Pountos I. Bone regeneration: the role of growth factors and biomaterials // Injury. — 2005. — Vol.36, Suppl.4. — P. S20-S27. DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2005.07.028
6. Albrektsson T., Wennerberg A. Oral implant surfaces: Part 1 — review focusing on topographic and chemical properties of different surfaces and in vivo responses to them // International Journal of Prosthodontics. — 2004. — Vol.17, No.5. — P. 536-543. DOI: 10.11607/ijp.2004.5.536
7. Giannoudis P.V., Einhorn T.A., Marsh D. Fracture healing: the diamond concept // Injury. — 2007. — Vol.38, Suppl.4. — P. S3-S6. DOI: 10.1016/S0020-1383(08)70003-4
8. Wang W., Yeung K.W.K. Bone grafts and biomaterials substitutes for bone defect repair: a review // Bioactive Materials. — 2017. — Vol.2, No.4. — P. 224-247. DOI: 10.1016/j.bioactmat.2017.05.007
9. Bose S., Roy M., Bandyopadhyay A. Recent advances in bone tissue engineering scaffolds // Trends in Biotechnology. — 2012. — Vol.30, No.10. — P. 546-554. DOI: 10.1016/j.tibtech.2012.07.005
10. Stevens M.M. Biomaterials for bone tissue engineering // Materials Today. — 2008. — Vol.11, No.5. — P. 18-25. DOI: 10.1016/S1369-7021(08)70191-9
11. Khan S.N., Cammisa F.P. Jr., Sandhu H.S., Diwan A.D., Girardi F.P., Lane J.M. The biology of bone grafting // Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. — 2005. — Vol.13, No.1. — P. 77-86. DOI: 10.5435/00124635-200501000-00010
12. Zhang J., Liu W., Schnitzler V., Tancret F., Bouler J.M. Calcium phosphate cements for bone substitution: chemistry, handling and mechanical properties // Acta Biomaterialia. — 2014. — Vol.10, No.3. — P. 1035-1049. DOI: 10.1016/j.actbio.2013.11.010
13. Khorasani M.T., Mirzadeh H., Irani S. Plasma surface modification of polymeric biomaterials for tissue engineering applications // Polymer. — 2008. — Vol.49, No.20. — P. 4173-4187. DOI: 10.1016/j.polymer.2008.07.006
14. Grayson W.L., Frohlich M., Yeager K. et al. Engineering anatomically shaped human bone grafts // Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA. — 2010. — Vol.107, No.8. — P. 3299-3304. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0905439106
15. Liu X., Ma P.X. Polymeric scaffolds for bone tissue engineering // Annals of Biomedical Engineering. — 2004. — Vol.32, No.3. — P. 477-486. DOI: 10.1023/B:ABME.0000017544.36001.8e
16. Dorozhkin S.V. Calcium orthophosphate-based bioceramics // Materials. — 2013. — Vol.6, No.9. — P. 3840-3942. DOI: 10.3390/ma6093840
17. Burchardt H. The biology of bone graft repair // Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research. — 1983. — No.174. — P. 28-42.
18. Hutmacher D.W. Scaffolds in tissue engineering bone and cartilage // Biomaterials. — 2000. — Vol.21, No.24. — P. 2529-2543. DOI: 10.1016/S0142-9612(00)00121-6
19. Khashan M., Ingram J., Saha S., et al. The use of 3D printing in bone tissue engineering // Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part B: Applied Biomaterials. — 2021. — Vol.109, No.10. — P. 1630-1645. DOI: 10.1002/jbm.b.34852
20. Wang X., Xu S., Zhou S. et al. Topological design and additive manufacturing of porous metals for bone scaffolds and orthopaedic implants: a review // Biomaterials. — 2016. — Vol.83. — P. 127-141. DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2016.01.012
21. Bose S., Vahabzadeh S., Bandyopadhyay A. Bone tissue engineering using 3D printing // Materials Today. — 2013. — Vol.16, No.12. — P. 496-504. DOI: 10.1016/j.mattod.2013.11.017
22. Buser D., Sennerby L., De Bruyn H. Modern implant dentistry based on osseointegration: 50 years of progress, current trends and open questions // Periodontology 2000. — 2017. — Vol.73, No.1. — P. 7-21. DOI: 10.1111/prd.12185



















