International Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 12 , ISSUE 2 ( April-June, 2022 ) > List of Articles


Cranioplasty—Beginning to End: A Case Series using Acrylic, Titanium Mesh Reinforced Acrylic and PEEK

Ranjoy Hazra, Ayush Srivastava, Amit Khattak

Keywords : Cranioplasty, Polyether ether ketone cranial implant, Polymethyl methacrylate cranial plate, Titanium mesh

Citation Information : Hazra R, Srivastava A, Khattak A. Cranioplasty—Beginning to End: A Case Series using Acrylic, Titanium Mesh Reinforced Acrylic and PEEK. Int J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2022; 12 (2):88-93.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10019-1351

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 25-01-2023

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2022; The Author(s).


Cranial defects are caused by certain congenital anomalies like Crouzon syndrome, or they may be acquired due to surgery, trauma, or pathological diseases. These cranial defects lead to disfigurement, mechanical vulnerability, social stigma, and neurological complications. Cranioplasty is the procedure to restore the natural esthetics, provide a mechanical barrier to protect the brain, and maintain cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) pressure. But the outcome of this technique will mainly depend on a large number of factors like case selection, the timing of surgery, implant material to restore the defect, snuggly fitting cranial plate, and biocompatibility of the graft material used. Out of these, the most important factor of a successful cranioplasty is the fabrication of an artificial cranial plate following accurate impression and fabrication principles. Different materials like metals, heat-polymerizing polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) resin, polyethylene, and silicone have been used to fabricate cranial plates. Recently, polyether ether ketone (PEEK) and titanium have also been used with great success. This article presents three case reports showing three techniques of fabrication of cranial prosthesis with basic to latest materials and modalities.

PDF Share
  1. Joseph TM, Ravichandran R, Harshakumar K, et al. Prosthetic rehabilitation in neurosurgical cranioplasty. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2018;18(1):76–81. DOI: 10.4103/jips.jips_136_17
  2. Mortellaro C, Garagiola U, Lucchina AG, et al. The use of silicon elastomer in maxillofacial rehabilitation as a substitute for or in conjunction with resins. J Craniofac Surg 2006;17(1):152–162. DOI: 10.1097/01.scs.0000193553.39917.eb
  3. Goiato MC, Pesqueira AA, Santos DMD, et al. Evaluation of dimensional change and detail reproduction in silicones for facial prostheses. Acta Odontol Latinoam 2008;21(1):85–88. PMID: 18841751.
  4. Thakur A, Dushyant C, Viswambaran M. Rapid prototyping technology for cranioplasty: a case series. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2019;19(2):184–189. DOI: 10.4103/jips.jips_295_18
  5. Pavaiya A, Tyagi VK, Tripathi A, et al. Cranioplasty with alloplastic cranial implant. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2009;9(2):109–111. DOI: 10.4103/0972-4052.55256
  6. Seckin A, Baris K. Cranioplasty: review of materials and techniques. J Neurosci Rural Pract 2011;2(2):162–167. DOI: 10.4103/0976-3147.83584
  7. Le C, Guppy KH, Axelrod YV, et al. Lower complication rates for cranioplasty with peri-operative bundle. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 2014;120:41–44. DOI: 10.1016/j.clineuro.2014.02.009
  8. Gupta L, Aparna I, Balakrishnan D, et al. Cranioplasty with custom made alloplastic prosthetic implant: a case report. World J Clin Cases 2014;2(9):482–487. DOI: 10.12998/wjcc.v2.i9.482
  9. Nagarajan T, Prakash P, Bhandari SK. Multidimensional evaluation of prosthetically rehabilitated\cranial defects using key behavior change inventory. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2021;21(3):311–315. DOI: 10.4103/jips.jips_587_20
  10. Chauhan D, Chattopadhyay PK, Thakur A. Reconstruction of cranial defect with patient-specific implants: four different cost-effective techniques. Natl J Maxillofac Surg 2022;13(1):136–142. DOI: 10.4103/njms.NJMS_200_20
  11. Alqutaibi AY. Materials of facial prosthesis: history and advances. Int J Contemp Dent Med Rev 2015;2015:4. DOI: 10.15713/ins.ijcdmr.90
  12. Mathew N, Joseph S, Joseph AM, et al. Rehabilitation of a craniofacial defect using extra-cranial prosthesis. J Int Oral Health 2016;8(7):813–816. DOI: 10.2047/jioh-08-07-13
  13. Ebrahimi A, Nejadsarvari N, Rasouli HR, et al. Warfare-related secondary anterior cranioplasty. Ann Maxillofac Surg 2016;6(1):58–62. DOI: 10.4103/2231-0746.186127
  14. Tack P, Victor J, Gemmel P, et al. 3D–printing techniques in a medical setting: a systematic literature review. Biomed Eng Online 2016;15(1):115–22. DOI: 10.1186/s12938-016-0236-4
  15. Punchak M, Chung LK, Lagman C, et al. Outcomes following polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cranioplasty: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Neurosci 2017;41:30–35. DOI: 10.1016/j.jocn.2017.03.028
  16. Kapri A, Kumari P, Sethna G, Rehabilitation of a cranial defect with a preoperatively customized polymethyl-methacrylate prosthesis using 3-dimensional printed polylactic acid mold: a case report. IP Ann Prosthodont Restor Dent 2020;6(2):105–109. DOI: 10.18231/j.aprd.2020.022
  17. Goldstein JA, Paliga JT, Bartlett SP. Cranioplasty: indications and advances. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2013;21(4):400–409. DOI: 10.1097/MOO.0b013e328363003e
  18. Gupta AK, Kumari M, Gupta R, et al. Diversifying the rehabilitation of calvarial defects: rejuvenating precision: a case series. Natl J Maxillofac Surg 2021;12(3):426–430. DOI: 10.4103/njms.NJMS_288_20
  19. Parichay PJ, Khanapure K, Joshi KC, et al. Clinical and radiological assessment of cerebral hemodynamics after cranioplasty for decompressive craniectomy – a clinical study. J Clin Neurosci 2017;42:97–101. DOI: 10.1016/j.jocn.2017.04.005
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.