STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Since their introduction, craniofacial implants have been used in prosthetic rehabilitation of facial defects. The literature, however, indicates marked variability in outcomes using implants for the retention of orbital prostheses. PURPOSE: A multicenter report updating the experience in the United States with the use of craniofacial implants for prosthetic rehabilitation of orbital defects is presented. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Surveys were sent to clinicians at 25 centers where maxillofacial prosthetic treatment is provided to obtain retrospective data regarding patients who completed implant-retained orbital prosthetic rehabilitation. Data on implant placement location, radiation treatment history, and use of hyperbaric oxygen therapy were collected and assessed in relationship to implant survival over time. The Kaplan-Meier life table and Wilcoxon analyses (alpha = .05) were used to assess the significance of the findings. RESULTS: Ten centers responded, providing data suitable for statistical analysis on 153 implants placed to retain 44 orbital prostheses and followed for a mean period of 52.6 months. Forty-one implant integration failures occurred during this follow-up period, resulting in an overall integration survival rate of 73.2%. No significant relationship was found between radiation treatment history, hyperbaric oxygen therapy history, or implant placement location and implant survival. Individual responses revealed large variability between reporting centers in treatment outcomes. CONCLUSION: Craniofacial implants may offer marked benefits in the prosthetic rehabilitation of orbital defects when compared to conventional adhesive retention designs. However, questions remain regarding long-term predictability and the impact specific factors may have on treatment outcomes. Insufficient data is currently available from which to draw statistically meaningful conclusions. The establishment of a national database designed to acquire adequate data to assess treatment outcomes is recommended.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Since their introduction, craniofacial implants have been used in prosthetic rehabilitation of facial defects. The literature, however, indicates marked variability in outcomes using implants for the retention of orbital prostheses. PURPOSE: A multicenter report updating the experience in the United States with the use of craniofacial implants for prosthetic rehabilitation of orbital defects is presented. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Surveys were sent to clinicians at 25 centers where maxillofacial prosthetic treatment is provided to obtain retrospective data regarding patients who completed implant-retained orbital prosthetic rehabilitation. Data on implant placement location, radiation treatment history, and use of hyperbaric oxygen therapy were collected and assessed in relationship to implant survival over time. The Kaplan-Meier life table and Wilcoxon analyses (alpha = .05) were used to assess the significance of the findings. RESULTS: Ten centers responded, providing data suitable for statistical analysis on 153 implants placed to retain 44 orbital prostheses and followed for a mean period of 52.6 months. Forty-one implant integration failures occurred during this follow-up period, resulting in an overall integration survival rate of 73.2%. No significant relationship was found between radiation treatment history, hyperbaric oxygen therapy history, or implant placement location and implant survival. Individual responses revealed large variability between reporting centers in treatment outcomes. CONCLUSION:Craniofacial implants may offer marked benefits in the prosthetic rehabilitation of orbital defects when compared to conventional adhesive retention designs. However, questions remain regarding long-term predictability and the impact specific factors may have on treatment outcomes. Insufficient data is currently available from which to draw statistically meaningful conclusions. The establishment of a national database designed to acquire adequate data to assess treatment outcomes is recommended.
Authors: Amanda C Colebeck; Michael T Kase; Cindy B Nichols; Marjorie Golden; Joseph M Huryn Journal: J Prosthodont Date: 2015-05-07 Impact factor: 2.752