BACKGROUND: Percutaneous endosseous implants have acquired an important place in the prosthetic rehabilitation of patients with craniofacial defects. The objective of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcome of the use of endosseous implants in the orbital and auricular region as well as to assess the satisfaction of patients with implant-retained craniofacial prostheses after tumor surgery. METHODS: The clinical outcome and patient satisfaction of implant-retained prostheses in the auricular and orbital region were evaluated in a group of 26 patients with facial defects after tumor surgery by using standardized questionnaires and a clinical assessment. Twelve patients (n = 31 implants) received the implants during ablative tumor surgery, from which 7 patients (n = 20 implants) were treated with radiation therapy after surgery (mean, 65 grays [Gy]). Fourteen patients (n = 44 implants) received the implants after the tumor surgery, from which 5 patients (n = 21 implants) were irradiated after ablative surgery (mean, 54.4 Gy), but before implant placement. RESULTS: No implants were lost in patients who had not undergone irradiation (100%), whereas 5 implants were lost in the irradiated group (87.8%). The overall implant survival rate was 93.3%. The peri-implant tissues had a healthy appearance, and no cases of osteoradionecrosis occurred. When compared with patients treated with conventional adhesive retained facial prostheses, satisfaction was higher in patients treated with implant-retained facial prostheses. CONCLUSIONS: From this study, it is concluded that implant-retained facial prostheses are better tolerated than adhesive retained prostheses and offer an improvement in the quality of life. Radiotherapy is not a contraindication for the use of osseointegrated implants in the maxillofacial region, but the loss of implants is higher than in nonirradiated sites. Copyright 2001 American Cancer Society.
BACKGROUND: Percutaneous endosseous implants have acquired an important place in the prosthetic rehabilitation of patients with craniofacial defects. The objective of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcome of the use of endosseous implants in the orbital and auricular region as well as to assess the satisfaction of patients with implant-retained craniofacial prostheses after tumor surgery. METHODS: The clinical outcome and patient satisfaction of implant-retained prostheses in the auricular and orbital region were evaluated in a group of 26 patients with facial defects after tumor surgery by using standardized questionnaires and a clinical assessment. Twelve patients (n = 31 implants) received the implants during ablative tumor surgery, from which 7 patients (n = 20 implants) were treated with radiation therapy after surgery (mean, 65 grays [Gy]). Fourteen patients (n = 44 implants) received the implants after the tumor surgery, from which 5 patients (n = 21 implants) were irradiated after ablative surgery (mean, 54.4 Gy), but before implant placement. RESULTS: No implants were lost in patients who had not undergone irradiation (100%), whereas 5 implants were lost in the irradiated group (87.8%). The overall implant survival rate was 93.3%. The peri-implant tissues had a healthy appearance, and no cases of osteoradionecrosis occurred. When compared with patients treated with conventional adhesive retained facial prostheses, satisfaction was higher in patients treated with implant-retained facial prostheses. CONCLUSIONS: From this study, it is concluded that implant-retained facial prostheses are better tolerated than adhesive retained prostheses and offer an improvement in the quality of life. Radiotherapy is not a contraindication for the use of osseointegrated implants in the maxillofacial region, but the loss of implants is higher than in nonirradiated sites. Copyright 2001 American Cancer Society.
Authors: S Mueller; B Hohlweg-Majert; R Buergers; T Steiner; T E Reichert; K-D Wolff; M Gosau Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2014-04-26 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Chi Keung Tam; Colman Patrick McGrath; Samuel Mun Yin Ho; Edmond Ho Nang Pow; Henry Wai Kuen Luk; Lim Kwong Cheung Journal: Int J Dent Date: 2014-03-31