Next Article in Journal
Differences Between Patient and Surgeon Perspectives: A Long-Term Follow-Up of 180 Patients with Zygomaticomaxillary Complex Fractures Following Either Conservative or Surgical Treatment
Previous Article in Journal
Narrative Review: Submental Artery Island Pedicled Flap, Indications, Tips, and Pitfalls
 
 
Craniomaxillofacial Trauma & Reconstruction is published by MDPI from Volume 18 Issue 1 (2025). Previous articles were published by another publisher in Open Access under a CC-BY (or CC-BY-NC-ND) licence, and they are hosted by MDPI on mdpi.com as a courtesy and upon agreement with Sage.
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Review of the Literature on the Current State of Periosteum-Mediated Craniofacial Bone Regeneration

by
Eyituoyo Okoturo
Lead Research-Molecular Oncology Program, Medical Research Centre, Lagos State University College of Medicine (LASUCOM), 2-5 Oba Akinjobi Avenue, GRA Ikeja, Lagos, Nigeria
Craniomaxillofac. Trauma Reconstr. 2024, 17(3), 253-262; https://doi.org/10.1177/19433875231214068
Submission received: 1 November 2022 / Revised: 1 December 2022 / Accepted: 1 January 2023 / Published: 9 November 2023

Abstract

:
Study Design: This is an article review on the current state of periosteum-mediated bone regeneration (PMBR). It is a known mandibular reconstruction option in children, and though poorly understood and unpredictable, the concerns of developmental changes to donor and recipient tissues shared by other treatment options are nonexistent. The definitive role of periosteum during bone regeneration remains largely unknown. Objective: The objective is to review the literature on the clinical and molecular mechanism evidence of this event. Methods: Our search methodology was modeled after the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis) guidelines. Search strategies were categorized into search 1 for clinical evidence of mandibular regeneration and search 2 for gene expression review for craniofacial regeneration. The quality assessment of each publication was undertaken, and inclusion criteria comprise mandibular continuity defect for search 1 and use of gene expression assay propriety kit for search 2. Results: 33 studies were selected for search 1 while four studies with non-human subjects were selected for search 2. Monitoring of PMBR onset was advised at 2 weeks post-operative, and the gene expression results showed an upregulation of genes responsible for angiogenesis, cytokine activities, and immune–inflammatory response in week 1 and skeletal development and signaling pathways in week 2. Conclusions: The results suggest that young periosteum has a higher probability of PMBR than adult periosteum, and skeletal morphogenesis regulated by skeletal developmental genes and pathways may characterize the gene expression patterns of PMBR.

1. Introduction

Several techniques are used in the reconstruction of childhood mandibular defects and till date, about 29 cases of pediatric mandibular reconstruction has been reported in the English literature of which 13 were free flap reconstructions, 11 were non-vascularized reconstructions, and 5 used both techniques [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29]. Due to developmental changes of bone and soft tissue donor and recipient sites in children, secondary mandibular reconstruction is usually preferred [26,30]. However, the clinical event, periosteum-mediated bone regeneration (PMBR), is thought to sometime occur and is today considered a third pediatric bone reconstruction option [31,32]. Mandibular PMBR is not clearly understood but is characterized by new bone formation in a defect from resection of the mandible. Indications for mandibular PMBR include defects from periosteum sparing benign jaw tumors, cystic enucleation, osteomyelitis, and traumatic avulsions. Despite its poor understanding and unpredictability, there are no concerns about changes in donor and recipient tissues during growth and development, often seen in other treatment options. Similarly, bone induction during both bone healing and repair comprises four successive phases: an initial inflammatory response and recruitment of osteo-progenitor cells, formation of a cartilaginous template, replacement of template with immature (spongy) bone, and finally remodeling into mature bone, with the periosteum being the main driver [33]. While others have reported a mandibular PMBR onset of ∼14 days [34], our group reported 21 days and a bi-mandibular regenerative span of ∼8 cm in length. Our group also reported that mandibular PMBR can be categorized as “complete”, that is, regenerated bone occupying >50% of the radiographic defect, or “incomplete” which is irregular in outline and occupying <50% of the radiographic defect [32]. While there have been numerous research studies on bone healing and repair, the definitive role of periosteum and the molecular pathways that regulate bone regeneration in mammals remain largely unknown [35]. As an important first step, a review of PMBR genetic determinant would be beneficial in this quest to unraveling this and an analysis of gene expression that comprises RNA transcription and protein translation, which provides an insight into normal cellular processes, would be considered accurate for interrogating genetic association of this event [36,37]. The techniques used for evaluating gene expressions include DNA arrays and realtime polymerase chain reaction for RNA expression and Western blotting and gel electrophoresis for protein expression [36,37].
The aim of this study is to review the literature on the clinical evidence of mandibular PMBR and further review its molecular mechanism through gene expression studies.

2. Methodology

Two searches were conducted, the first (search 1) focusing on the clinical evidence of mandibular PMBR and the second (search 2) being on the molecular mechanism of craniofacial PMBR.

2.1. Search Strategy

The methodology was modeled after the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and MetaAnalysis) guidelines [38]. Cochrane style MeSH terms and keywords were used for the initial searches. Search 1 terms comprised mandible, spontaneous bone regeneration, periosteum-induced bone regeneration, and periosteum, mandible, and (or) bone regeneration. Search 2 terms comprised craniofacial and (or) bone regeneration, periosteum-induced bone regeneration, gene expression studies, and techniques, that is, DNA array and real-time polymerase chain reaction. The search tools such as PubMed, Ovid Medline, and Web of science were used.

2.2. Eligibility Criteria

English-only publications were reviewed and studies selected were cross-sectional studies, case-controlled studies, and controlled clinical trials. Publication titles and abstracts were initially reviewed to identify articles suitable, and selected manuscripts were proofread by the author. Additional publications from the reference list of this initial search were retrieved and reviewed to identify potential papers that met these study criteria. All studies for search 1 must have bony continuity defect while those for search 2 must use proprietary named kits for gene expression studies according to manufacturer’s protocol. In addition, purely clinical and pathology-related studies were included for search 1, while clinical, pathology-related, conference proceedings, and abstract-only articles were excluded for search 2.

2.3. Quality Appraisal

The quality assessment of each publication was undertaken through pre-existing assessment tools or their modifications as written below:
Search 1. Since these would be majorly observational studies, that is, case reports and series, the current quality assessment tools provide limited assessment of these types of studies [39].
Search 2. The quality assessment of each publication was undertaken through a modification of a pre-existing tool: STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association studies (STREGA) [40]. Assessment would be achieved by evaluating in each article the following: characterization of a periosteum-mediated craniofacial bone regeneration, description of case and control screening population, inclusion of gene or variant ID (eg, NCBI rs identification, evaluation of gene function, or gene ontology identifiers), and measure of genetic association. In addition, the difference in gene expressions between 7 and 15 days was also reviewed and this was arrived at based on the scientific report that, the first phase (inflammatory response and recruitment of osteoprogenitor cells) of bone induction during bone repair and healing occurs in the first week [33].

2.4. Data Extraction and Analysis

All results were extracted onto a data form for tabulation. SPSS 27 software package (IBM Company, Armonk, NY, USA) was used for statistical analysis. Sample size, age range, and median of subjects with paired sample data during expression analysis were captured for descriptive statistical information. Ages of participants for search 1 were categorized as children—between 0 and 11 years—pre-adolescence—between 12 and 18 years—and adult >18 years [41]. Where microarray was used in search 2 for differential gene expressions, a fold change threshold according to manufacturer’s protocol was used to consider a gene expression as significant.

3. Results

3.1. Search 1

The electronic search yielded 101 citations, of which 68 publications were removed for lack of correlation to search objectives, that is, 39 were unrelated clinical and pathological-based studies, 15 were observational studies, and 14 were conference proceedings; thus, 33 [31,32,34,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71] publications were selected for full-text review and all met the criteria for study inclusion (Chart 1). The 33 studies comprised 8 case series, and 25 case reports all utilizing 65 participants (Table 1). Geographically, 24% (8/ 33) of all studies utilizing 43% (28/65) of cases were reports originating from Africa, [32,42,50,58,60,62,63,65] an observation probably conditioned by the limited facilities mitigating against primary or vascularized reconstruction. 61% (36/59) of cases were males while 39% (23/59) were females and 6 cases did not specify gender. Ages were categorized as 37% (22/59) children, 30% (18/59) preadolescence, and 32% (19/59) adults. Concerning PMBR indications, 74% (44/59) were benign pathologies (Figure 1 and Figure 2), 8% (5/59) were malignant pathologies, 7% (4/59) were high-velocity traumas, 4% (2/59) were TMJ ankylosis, and 2% (1/65) were congenital condylar atresia, medication-induced osteonecrosis, and osteomyelitis while 12% (7/65) were unspecified. Concerning time of onset of PMBR, a range of between 2 and 128 weeks was recorded; however, most of the study observations were based on follow-ups compared to periodical monitoring, thus a median of the data would be an accurate characterization of this event. A median of 3 weeks for PMBR onset was recorded in our earlier study[32] based on periodic radiographic monitoring; thus, a period of <2 weeks up or down this threshold period was considered an appropriate period for PMBR onset (Figure 3). No correlation was observed in histology type and immobilization. There was also no correlation to defect span and complete or incomplete PMBR.

3.2. Search 2

The electronic search yielded 69 citations, of which 57 publications were removed for lack of correlation to search objectives, that is, 38 descriptive studies. 9 conference proceedings, 8 observational (clinical) studies, and 2 papers for study duplicity; thus, 12 publications were selected for full-text review. Upon further review, eight additional studies were removed for being purely clinical (observational) studies and having no gene expression correlation, resulting in four studies [72,73,74,75] being considered for inclusion (Chart 2). All four studies used nonhuman subjects, comprising twelve Wistar rats, six Mini pigs, and three Calves’ calvaria transplanted on mice. In summary, the result analysis showed an upregulation of genes responsible for angiogenesis, cytokine activities, immune–inflammatory response, and skeletal development. Cytokine and immune–inflammatory response genes like cytokines (IL-1 beta and IL-6), cathepsin-K (CTSK), and receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa-B ligand (RANKL) were mostly implicated at day 7 while osteoblastspecific genes like runt-related transcription factor 2 (Runx2), collagen type 1, osteonectin, and osteocalcin/osteopontin genes were implicated at day 15 (Table 2). Several biological signaling pathways like BMP-2, Hedgehog, PDGF, Notch, and Wnt were also implicated at day 15.

4. Discussion

While bone regeneration is believed to be periosteal driven, there remains little understanding on the precise role played by the periosteum [76,77]. It is the position of this paper that an improved understanding of this role might proffer countless benefits to bony defect reconstruction with advantages like low cost and reduced morbidity from a non-existent donor site, with its unpredictability and lack of consensus amongst clinicians, remaining its only drawback. The number of studies that met this study’s inclusion criteria suggests the dearth of publications on this topic, with search 2 revealing no report on the underlying molecular mechanism of periosteum in bone regeneration amongst humans. Empirically, three conditions must be met for bone induction to take place: presence of osteoprogenitor cells, an inducing agent, and an environment permissive to osteogenesis [78]. The periosteum acts as an osteogenic progenitor cell and provides vascular supply for the newly formed bone while its intact state is thought to provide a barrier to infiltration of granulation tissue, thus creating a permissive environment for osteogenesis [52,79]. Infection and residual bone segments have been suggested as the inducer agent for mesenchymal cells in the surrounding tissues [42,50], but these are in converse to reports of zero prophylactic antibiotics used during PMBR cases and PMBR of the entire mandible [32,60].
A recurring decimal in most of the reports reviewed was the relatively young periosteum, that is, less than 18 years in age, which constituted 67% of the PMBR cases while 18 years and above constituted 33% of cases. This was always considered a pre-condition for PMBR with the explanation being their osteogenically active periosteum [31]. While some researchers have carried out subperiosteal dissection (mucoperiosteal flap without damage to the periosteum) for adults (>18 years) and reported no PMBR, few have done same and reported PMBR [43,48,65], thus suggesting the ability of a young periosteum to retain its osteocompetency with increasing age. However, childhood/preadolescence continues to be a key predisposing factor in promoting PMBR. Concerning PMBR onset, most of the studies used post-operative radiography for follow-ups rather than monitoring for PMBR. However, for the few that recorded early radiographic images [31,32,34,45,46,47,62,64,67], the PMBR onset ranged from 2 to 8 weeks with a median of 5 weeks. However, this study suggests radiographic monitoring from as early as 2 weeks especially for children <12 years. The use of PMBR for treating malignant cases was another aspect recorded as this study surprisingly recorded 5 cases of malignant cases with all being sarcomas including one post-irradiated case [51,66,67,69,71]. All cases were early-stage sarcomas and were all intra-bony which allowed for subperiosteal dissection. However, the author suggests that the use of PMBR for malignant cases should be exercised with extreme caution.
With little or no genetic association studies on PMBR in humans, one of the four selected animal model studies recorded no gene ontology identifier [75], thereby negating the quality assessment of this publication. However, the skeleto-developmental and immune–inflammatory responses were the major events implicated in bone regeneration according to this review, and it further suggested that the inflammatory–immune response was unique and different from that of the usual soft tissue wound healing [80,81,82]. The upregulation of inflammatory and immune response was not unexpected at 7 days as this supports the initial inflammatory phase of bone induction, but the added responses of I-kB kinase/NF-kB signaling pathway were interesting as this is a known pathway reported to induce inflammation-induced bone loss [83]. In week 2, the upregulated pathways such as TGF beta/Bmp, Wnt, and Notch are known to upregulate skeletal developmental gene expression. While these pathways are wellknown skeletal development pathways, Bmp signaling is the only pathway suspected to be associated with bone regeneration while BMP2 is suggested to regulate PMBR through periosteum-based target cells [84,85]. In addition, Wnt signaling pathway was another upregulation response noted at week 2; however unlike the Bmp target cells, the Wnt target cells are resident in fractured bones and despite showing similarity to PMBR event, this study suggests that the Wnt pathway might influence more of bone repair than regeneration albeit in a different mechanism from the Bmp signaling [86,87].
In conclusion, this review tried to harmonize the various reports on the complex events of PMBR of the mandible through clinical evidence and gene expression studies. The results suggest that PMBR has a higher probability when young periosteum in children and pre-adolescence are considered than adults and periodic monitoring should commence as early as 2 weeks post-surgery. The immune– inflammatory genes appear to regulate inflammatory response early while the skeletal developmental genes and related pathways characterize the gene expression patterns of PMBR much latter in the event. Being deliberate in anticipating PMBR during secondary pediatric reconstruction would be beneficial. The limitation of the study would include the observational nature of the clinical evidence on PMBR.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Conflicts of Interest

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

  1. Smith, A.; Petersen, D.; Samant, S.; Ver Halen, J.P. Pediatric mandibular reconstruction following resection of oral squamous cell carcinoma: A case report. Am J Otolaryngol. 2014, 35, 826–828. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  2. Posnick, J.C.; Wells, M.D.; Zuker, R.M. Use of the free fibular flap in the immediate reconstruction of pediatric mandibular tumors: Report of cases. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1993, 51, 189–196. [Google Scholar]
  3. Hildago, D.A.; Shenaq, S.M.; Larson, D.L. Mandibular reconstruction in the pediatric patient. Head Neck. 1996, 18, 359–365. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  4. Lydaki, E.; Bolonaki, I.; Stiakaki, E.; et al. Immediate free flap mandibular reconstruction in osteosarcoma of the mandible in childhood. Pediatr Hematol Oncol. 2000, 17, 335–340. [Google Scholar]
  5. Eckardt, A.; Swennen, G.; Teltzrow, T. Melanotic neuroectodermal tumor of infancy involving the mandible: 7-year follow-up after hemimandibulectomy and costochondral graft reconstruction. J Craniofac Surg. 2001, 12, 349–354. [Google Scholar]
  6. Nahabedian, M.Y.; Tufaro, A.; Manson, P.N. Improved mandible function after hemimandibulectomy, condylar head preservation, and vascularized fibular reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg. 2001, 46, 506–510. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  7. Phillips, J.H.; Rechner, B.; Tompson, B.D. Mandibular growth following reconstruction using a free fibula graft in the pediatric facial skeleton. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2005, 116, 419–424. [Google Scholar]
  8. Fenton, C.C.; Nish, I.A.; Carmichael, R.P.; Sandor, G.K. Metastatic mandibular retinoblastoma in a child reconstructed with soft tissue matrix expansion grafting: A preliminary report. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2007, 65, 2329–2335. [Google Scholar]
  9. Warren, S.M.; Borud, L.J.; Brecht, L.E.; Longaker, M.T.; Siebert, J.W. Microvascular reconstruction of the pediatric mandible. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007, 119, 649–661. [Google Scholar]
  10. Bilkay, U.; Tiftikcioglu, Y.O.; Temiz, G.; Ozek, C.; Akin, Y. Freetissue transfers for reconstruction of oromandibular area in children. Microsurgery. 2008, 28, 91–98. [Google Scholar]
  11. Crosby, M.A.; Martin, J.W.; Robb, G.L.; Chang, D.W. Pediatric mandibular reconstruction using a vascularized fibula flap. Head Neck. 2008, 30, 311–319. [Google Scholar]
  12. Li, J.S.; Chen, W.L.; Huang, Z.Q.; Zhang, D.M. Pediatric mandibular reconstruction after benign tumor ablation using a vascularized fibular flap. J Craniofac Surg. 2009, 20, 431–434. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  13. Sinno, H.; Zadeh, T. Desmoid tumors of the pediatric mandible: Case report and review. Ann Plast Surg. 2009, 62, 213–219. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  14. Upton, J.; Guo, L.; Labow, B.I. Pediatric free-tissue transfer. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009, 124 (Suppl. S6), e313–e326. [Google Scholar]
  15. Ducic, Y.; Young, L. Improving aesthetic outcomes in pediatric free tissue oromandibular reconstruction. Arch Facial Plast Surg. 2011, 13, 180–184. [Google Scholar]
  16. Pierse, J.; Ying-Peng Wun, E.; Pellecchia, R.; Wollenberg, J. Treatment of a rare ganglioneuroma with resection and reconstruction of the mandible: A case report and literature review. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014, 72, 748.e1–784.e9. [Google Scholar]
  17. Zhang, W.B.; Liang, T.; Peng, X. Mandibular growth after paediatric mandibular reconstruction with the vascularized free fibula flap: A systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016, 45, 440–447. [Google Scholar]
  18. Hu, L.; Yang, X.; Han, J.; et al. Secondary mandibular reconstruction for paediatric patients with long-term mandibular continuity defects: A retrospective study of six cases. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2017, 46, 447–452. [Google Scholar]
  19. Malloy, S.M.; Dronkers, W.J.; Firriolo, J.M.; et al. Outcomes following microvascular mandibular reconstruction in pediatric patients and young adults. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2020, 8, e3243. [Google Scholar]
  20. Valentini, V.; Califano, L.; Cassoni, A.; et al. Maxillo-mandibular reconstruction in pediatric patients: How to do it? J Craniofac Surg. 2018, 29, 761–766. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  21. Nam, J.W.; Nam, W.; Cha, I.H.; Kim, H.J. Considerations for mandibular reconstruction in the pediatric patient following resection of malignant tumors. J Craniofac Surg. 2019, 30, e163–e168. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  22. Volk, A.S.; Riad, S.S.H.; Kania, K.E.; et al. Quantifying free fibula flap growth after pediatric mandibular reconstruction. J Craniofac Surg. 2020, 31, e710–e714. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  23. Iconomou, T.G.; Zuker, R.M.; Phillips, J.H. Mandibular reconstruction in children using the vascularized fibula. J Reconstr Microsurg. 1999, 15, 83–90. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  24. Castellon, L.; Jerez, D.; Mayorga, J.; Gallego, A.; Fuenzalida, C.; Laissle, G. Mandibular reconstruction for pediatric patients. J Craniofac Surg. 2018, 29, 1421–1425. [Google Scholar]
  25. Guo, L.; Ferraro, N.F.; Padwa, B.L.; Kaban, L.B.; Upton, J. Vascularized fibular graft for pediatric mandibular reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008, 121, 2095–2105. [Google Scholar]
  26. Genden, E.M.; Buchbinder, D.; Chaplin, J.M.; Lueg, E.; Funk, G.F.; Urken, M.L. Reconstruction of the pediatric maxilla and mandible. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2000, 126, 293–300. [Google Scholar]
  27. Kolomvos, N.; Iatrou, I.; Theologie-Lygidakis, N.; Tzerbos, F.; Schoinohoriti, O. Iliac crest morbidity following maxillofacial bone grafting in children: A clinical and radiographic prospective study. J Cranio-Maxillo-Fac Surg. 2010, 38, 293–302. [Google Scholar]
  28. Rashid, M.; Tamimy, M.S.; Ehtesham Ul, H.; Sarwar, S.U.; Rizvi, S.T. Benign paediatric mandibular tumours: Experience in reconstruction using vascularised fibula. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2012, 65, e325–e331. [Google Scholar]
  29. Bianchi, B.; Ferri, A.; Ferrari, S.; et al. Microvascular reconstruction of mandibular defects in paediatric patients. J Cranio-Maxillo-Fac Surg. 2011, 39, 289–295. [Google Scholar]
  30. Chalmers, J.; Gray, D.H.; Rush, J. Observations on the induction of bone in soft tissues. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1975, 57, 36–45. [Google Scholar]
  31. Sharma, P.; Williams, R.; Monaghan, A. Spontaneous mandibular regeneration: Another option for mandibular reconstruction in children? Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2013, 51, e63–e66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Okoturo, E.; Ogunbanjo, O.V.; Arotiba, G.T. Spontaneous regeneration of the mandible: An institutional audit of regenerated bone and osteocompetent periosteum. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016, 74, 1660–1667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Colnot, C.; Zhang, X.; Knothe Tate, M.L. Current insights on the regenerative potential of the periosteum: Molecular, cellular, and endogenous engineering approaches. J Orthop Res. 2012, 30, 1869–1878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Nagase, M.; Ueda, K.; Suzuki, I.; Nakajima, T. Spontaneous regeneration of the condyle following hemimandibulectomy by disarticulation. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1985, 43, 218–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Ma, J.L.; Pan, J.L.; Tan, B.S.; Cui, F.Z. Determination of critical size defect of minipig mandible. J Tissue Eng Regen Med. 2009, 3, 615–622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Buccitelli, C.; Selbach, M. mRNAs, proteins and the emerging principles of gene expression control. Nat Rev Genet. 2020, 21, 630–644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Ganguly, P.; Toghill, B.; Pathak, S. Aging, bone marrow and next-generation sequencing (NGS): Recent advances and future perspectives. Int J Mol Sci. 2021, 22, 12225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Page, M.J.; Moher, D.; Bossuyt, P.M.; et al. PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: Updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021, 372, n160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Shamliyan, T.; Kane, R.L.; Dickinson, S. A systematic review of tools used to assess the quality of observational studies that examine incidence or prevalence and risk factors for diseases. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010, 63, 1061–1070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Little, J.; Higgins, J.P.; Ioannidis, J.P.; et al. STrengthening the REporting of genetic association studies (STREGA)--an extension of the STROBE statement. Genet Epidemiol. 2009, 33, 581–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Williams, K.; Thomson, D.; Seto, I.; et al. Standard 6: Age groups for pediatric trials. Pediatrics. 2012, 129 (Suppl. S3), S153–S160. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  42. Adekeye, E.O. Rapid bone regeneration subsequent to subtotal mandibulectomy. Report of an unusual case. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1977, 44, 521–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Esen, A.; Gurses, G.; Akkulah, S. Spontaneous bone regeneration in resected non-continuous mandible due to medicationrelated osteonecrosis of the jaw. J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2021, 47, 465–470. [Google Scholar]
  44. Ahmad, O.; Omami, G. Self-regeneration of the mandible following hemimandibulectomy for ameloblastoma: A case report and review of literature. J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2015, 14 (Suppl. S1), 245–250. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  45. Byars, L.T.; Schatten, W.E. Subperiosteal segmental resection of the mandible. Plast Reconstr Surg Transplant Bull. 1960, 25, 142–145. [Google Scholar]
  46. Budal, J. The surgical removal of large osteofibromas. The postoperative osteogenic capacity of the periosteum. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1970, 30, 303–308. [Google Scholar]
  47. Cardinal, L.; Dominguez, G.C.; Marodin, A.L.; Rau, L.H. Unusual spontaneous mandibular regeneration of a large defect followed by orthodontics, alveolar distraction, and dental implant rehabilitation: A 10-year follow-up. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016, 74, 786–793. [Google Scholar]
  48. de Villa, G.H.; Chen, C.T.; Chen, Y.R. Spontaneous bone regeneration of the mandible in an elderly patient: A case report and review of the literature. Chang Gung Med J. 2003, 26, 363–369. [Google Scholar]
  49. Coen Pramono, D. Spontaneous bone regeneration after mandible resection in a case of ameloblastoma--a case report. Ann Acad Med Singap. 2004, 33, 59–62. [Google Scholar]
  50. Elbeshir, E.I. Spontaneous regeneration of the mandibular bone following hemimandibulectomy. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1990, 28, 128–130. [Google Scholar]
  51. Kamegai, A.; Mori, M.; Inoue, S. Mandibular reconstruction using electrically stimulated periosteum. J Cranio-Maxillo-Fac Surg. 1990, 18, 8–13. [Google Scholar]
  52. Espinosa, S.A.; Villanueva, J.; Hampel, H.; Reyes, D. Spontaneous regeneration after juvenile ossifying fibroma resection: A case report. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2006, 102, e32–e35. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  53. Kazanjian, V.H. Spontaneous regeneration of bone following excision of section of the mandible. Am J Orthod Oral Surg 1946, 32, 242–248. [Google Scholar]
  54. Keizer, S.; Tuinzing, D.B. Spontaneous regeneration of a unilaterally absent mandibular condyle. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1985, 43, 130–132. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  55. Kisner, W.H. Spontaneous posttraumatic mandibular regeneration. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1980, 66, 442–447. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  56. Martins, W.D.; de Castro Avila, L.F. Partial spontaneous bone regeneration subsequent to mandibulectomy. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2004, 5, 108–120. [Google Scholar]
  57. Shuker, S. Spontaneous regeneration of the mandible in a child. A sequel to partial avulsion as a result of a war injury. J Maxillofac Surg. 1985, 13, 70–73. [Google Scholar]
  58. Nwoku, A.L. Unusually rapid bone regeneration following mandibular resection. J Maxillofac Surg. 1980, 8, 309–315. [Google Scholar]
  59. Boyne, P.J. The restoration of resected mandibles in children without the use of bone grafts. Head Neck Surg. 1983, 6, 626–631. [Google Scholar]
  60. Ogunlewe, M.O.; Akinwande, J.A.; Ladeinde, A.L.; Adeyemo, W.L. Spontaneous regeneration of whole mandible after total mandibulectomy in a sickle cell patient. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2006, 64, 981–984. [Google Scholar]
  61. Khodayari, A.K.A.; Khojasteh, A.; Kiani, M.; Nayebi, A.; Mehrdad, L.; Vahdatinia, M. Spontaneous regeneration of the mandible after hemimandibulectomy: Report of a case. J Dent. 2011, 8, 152–156. [Google Scholar]
  62. Abdulai, A.E. Complete spontaneous bone regeneration following partial mandibulectomy. Ghana Med J. 2012, 46, 147–174. [Google Scholar]
  63. Adebayo, E.T.; Fomete, B.; Ajike, S.O. Spontaneous bone regeneration following mandibular resection for odontogenic myxoma. Ann Afr Med. 2012, 11, 182–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Throndson, R.R.; Johnson, J.M. Spontaneous regeneration of bone after resection of central giant cell lesion: A case report. Tex Dent J. 2013, 130, 1201–1209. [Google Scholar]
  65. Anyanechi, C.E.; Saheeb, B.D.; Bassey, G.O. Spontaneous bone regeneration after segmental mandibular resection: A retrospective study of 13 cases. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016, 45, 1268–1272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Ruggiero, S.L.; Donoff, R.B. Bone regeneration after mandibular resection: Report of two cases. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1991, 49, 647–652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Bataineh, A. Spontaneous bone regeneration of the mandible: In a case of osteosarcoma and literature review. Acad Medustin J Dent. 2016, 3. [Google Scholar]
  68. Guven, O. Formation of condyle-like structure after treatment of temporomandibular joint ankylosis: Literature review and long-term follow-up of two patients. Case Rep Med. 2017, 2017, 9060174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Whitmyer, C.C.; Esposito, S.J.; Smith, J.D.; Zins, J.E. Spontaneous regeneration of a resected mandible in a preadolescent: A clinical report. J Prosthet Dent. 1996, 75, 356–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Rai, S.; Rattan, V.; Jolly, S.S.; Sharma, V.K.; Mubashir, M.M. Spontaneous regeneration of bone in segmental mandibular defect. J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2019, 18, 224–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Mesgarzadeh, A.H.; Abadi, A.; Keshani, F. Seven-year follow-up of spontaneous bone regeneration following segmental mandibulectomy: Alternative option for mandibular reconstruction. Dent Res J. 2019, 16, 435–440. [Google Scholar]
  72. Li, Z.; Pan, J.; Ma, J.; Zhang, Z.; Bai, Y. Microarray gene expression of periosteum in spontaneous bone regeneration of mandibular segmental defects. Sci Rep. 2017, 7, 13535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Al-Kattan, R.; Retzepi, M.; Calciolari, E.; Donos, N. Microarray gene expression during early healing of GBR-treated calvarial critical size defects. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017, 28, 1248–1257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Ivanovski, S.; Hamlet, S.; Retzepi, M.; Wall, I.; Donos, N. Transcriptional profiling of “guided bone regeneration” in a critical-size calvarial defect. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2011, 22, 382–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Matsushima, S.; Isogai, N.; Jacquet, R.; Lowder, E.; Tokui, T.; Landis, W.J. The nature and role of periosteum in bone and cartilage regeneration. Cells Tissues Organs. 2011, 194, 320–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Stricker, S.; Mundlos, S. FGF and ROR2 receptor tyrosine kinase signaling in human skeletal development. Curr Top Dev Biol. 2011, 97, 179–206. [Google Scholar]
  77. Berendsen, A.D.; Olsen, B.R. Bone development. Bone development. Bone. 2015, 80, 14–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Ripamonti, U.; Duarte, R.; Ferretti, C.; Reddi, A.H. Osteogenic competence and potency of the bone induction principle: inductive substrates that initiate bone: Formation by autoinduction. J Craniofac Surg. 2022, 33, 971–984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Verdugo, F.; Simonian, K.; D’Addona, A.; Ponton, J.; Nowzari, H. Human bone repair after mandibular symphysis block harvesting: A clinical and tomographic study. J Periodontol. 2010, 81, 702–709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Wang, X.; Yu, Y.Y.; Lieu, S.; et al. MMP9 regulates the cellular response to inflammation after skeletal injury. Bone. 2013, 52, 111–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Kolar, P.; Gaber, T.; Perka, C.; Duda, G.N.; Buttgereit, F. Human early fracture hematoma is characterized by inflammation and hypoxia. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011, 469, 3118–3126. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  82. Kolar, P.; Schmidt-Bleek, K.; Schell, H.; et al. The early fracture hematoma and its potential role in fracture healing. Tissue Eng Part B Rev. 2010, 16, 427–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Ruocco, M.G.; Karin, M. Control of osteoclast activity and bone loss by IKK subunits: New targets for therapy. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2007, 602, 125–134. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  84. Hashimoto, K.; Kaito, T.; Furuya, M.; et al. In vivo dynamic analysis of BMP-2-induced ectopic bone formation. Sci Rep. 2020, 10, 4751. [Google Scholar]
  85. Reyes, R.; Rodriguez, J.A.; Orbe, J.; Arnau, M.R.; Evora, C.; Delgado, A. Combined sustained release of BMP2 and MMP10 accelerates bone formation and mineralization of calvaria critical size defect in mice. Drug Deliv. 2018, 25, 750–756. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  86. Minear, S.; Leucht, P.; Jiang, J.; et al. Wnt proteins promote bone regeneration. Sci Transl Med. 2010, 2, 29ra30. [Google Scholar]
  87. Minear, S.; Leucht, P.; Miller, S.; Helms, J.A. rBMP represses Wnt signaling and influences skeletal progenitor cell fate specification during bone repair. J Bone Miner Res. 2010, 25, 1196–1207. [Google Scholar]
Chart 1. Search 1 PRISMA flow diagram.
Chart 1. Search 1 PRISMA flow diagram.
Cmtr 17 00038 ch001
Figure 1. Case 1: sub-periosteal dissection (case 1. A 10-year-old boy with right mandibular unicystic ameloblastoma [canine–ramus]).
Figure 1. Case 1: sub-periosteal dissection (case 1. A 10-year-old boy with right mandibular unicystic ameloblastoma [canine–ramus]).
Cmtr 17 00038 g001
Figure 2. Case 1: post sub-periostealresection with arch bar placement.
Figure 2. Case 1: post sub-periostealresection with arch bar placement.
Cmtr 17 00038 g002
Figure 3. Case 1: 11 months post-operative “complete PMBR”.
Figure 3. Case 1: 11 months post-operative “complete PMBR”.
Cmtr 17 00038 g003
Chart 2. Search 2 PRISMA flow diagram.
Chart 2. Search 2 PRISMA flow diagram.
Cmtr 17 00038 ch002
Table 1. Search 1 Publications With Clinical Characteristics.
Table 1. Search 1 Publications With Clinical Characteristics.
Cmtr 17 00038 i001
Table 2. Search 2 Publications With Specimens and Percentage Genes Expression at Weeks 1 and 2.
Table 2. Search 2 Publications With Specimens and Percentage Genes Expression at Weeks 1 and 2.
Cmtr 17 00038 i002

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Okoturo, E. Review of the Literature on the Current State of Periosteum-Mediated Craniofacial Bone Regeneration. Craniomaxillofac. Trauma Reconstr. 2024, 17, 253-262. https://doi.org/10.1177/19433875231214068

AMA Style

Okoturo E. Review of the Literature on the Current State of Periosteum-Mediated Craniofacial Bone Regeneration. Craniomaxillofacial Trauma & Reconstruction. 2024; 17(3):253-262. https://doi.org/10.1177/19433875231214068

Chicago/Turabian Style

Okoturo, Eyituoyo. 2024. "Review of the Literature on the Current State of Periosteum-Mediated Craniofacial Bone Regeneration" Craniomaxillofacial Trauma & Reconstruction 17, no. 3: 253-262. https://doi.org/10.1177/19433875231214068

APA Style

Okoturo, E. (2024). Review of the Literature on the Current State of Periosteum-Mediated Craniofacial Bone Regeneration. Craniomaxillofacial Trauma & Reconstruction, 17(3), 253-262. https://doi.org/10.1177/19433875231214068

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop