PURPOSE: An analysis of retrospective data was conducted to establish the survival rates of osseointegrated implants used to retain orbital, nasal, and auricular prostheses over a 14-year period and to recommend guidelines in the restorative treatment of such facial defects. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Included in this study were all patients who received implant-retained prostheses for auricular, nasal, or orbital defects from 1987 to 2001 in the Maxillofacial Clinics at the UCLA and City of Hope Medical Centers. Data were obtained from patient charts. Two methods were used to determine survival rates: (1) the percentage of the total exposed implants that survived was determined, and (2) life table analysis was used to calculate cumulative survival rates at different time intervals. RESULTS: A total of 207 implants were placed in 72 patients, and 182 implants had been uncovered. During the study period, 35 implants failed to integrate, and the survival rate for all exposed implants was 80%. Auricular implants showed the highest survival rate (95%), and orbital implants showed the lowest survival rate (53%). The life table analysis demonstrated a cumulative 6-year survival rate of 92% for auricular implants and 87% for piriform/nasal implants. In contrast, the survival rate for orbital implants showed a steady downward trend and reached 59% at 66 months. CONCLUSION: It is possible to achieve high survival rates of implants in the auricular and piriform/nasal sites through careful presurgical and radiographic planning. The less favorable long-term survival of implants in the orbital rim, especially at irradiated sites, requires further study.
PURPOSE: An analysis of retrospective data was conducted to establish the survival rates of osseointegrated implants used to retain orbital, nasal, and auricular prostheses over a 14-year period and to recommend guidelines in the restorative treatment of such facial defects. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Included in this study were all patients who received implant-retained prostheses for auricular, nasal, or orbital defects from 1987 to 2001 in the Maxillofacial Clinics at the UCLA and City of Hope Medical Centers. Data were obtained from patient charts. Two methods were used to determine survival rates: (1) the percentage of the total exposed implants that survived was determined, and (2) life table analysis was used to calculate cumulative survival rates at different time intervals. RESULTS: A total of 207 implants were placed in 72 patients, and 182 implants had been uncovered. During the study period, 35 implants failed to integrate, and the survival rate for all exposed implants was 80%. Auricular implants showed the highest survival rate (95%), and orbital implants showed the lowest survival rate (53%). The life table analysis demonstrated a cumulative 6-year survival rate of 92% for auricular implants and 87% for piriform/nasal implants. In contrast, the survival rate for orbital implants showed a steady downward trend and reached 59% at 66 months. CONCLUSION: It is possible to achieve high survival rates of implants in the auricular and piriform/nasal sites through careful presurgical and radiographic planning. The less favorable long-term survival of implants in the orbital rim, especially at irradiated sites, requires further study.