Ting-Ling Chang1, Neal Garrett, Eleni Roumanas, John Beumer. 1. Division of Advanced Prosthodontics, Weintraub Center for Reconstructive Biotechnology, UCLA School of Dentistry, University of California-Los Angeles, 10833 Le Comte Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1668, USA. tlchang@dent.ucla.edu
Abstract
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Facial defects secondary to the treatment of neoplasms, congenital malformations, and trauma result in multiple functional and psychosocial difficulties. Prosthetic rehabilitation attempts to restore these facial disfigurements and may improve the level of function and self-esteem for these patients. However, a limited number of studies have evaluated the change in perceived quality of life after maxillofacial prosthetic rehabilitation. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate patients' perceptions of treatment with adhesive-retained and implant-retained facial prostheses and to assess differences in overall satisfaction with these 2 types of treatments. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this study, a questionnaire with 28 items was administered for evaluation of perceptions of appearance, comfort, fit and irritation, reliability of retention, frequency of wear, ease of placement and removal, level of self-consciousness, and value of treatment. Subjects were categorized into 2 groups: adhesive-retained group (n=16) and implant-retained group (n=19). Comparisons were made for each item in the questionnaire using Fisher exact tests (alpha=.05). RESULTS: The implant group reported higher positive ratings on all 28 questionnaire items when compared with the adhesive group. Statistically significant (P<.05) differences between the implant and adhesive groups were noted for ease of placement and removal, frequency of wear at home, and quality of retention during various activities, such as home chores and when perspiring or sneezing/coughing. CONCLUSION: The implant-retained facial prosthesis offers significant enhancement over an adhesive-retained prosthesis with respect to ease of use and retention during a variety of daily activities, resulting in greater use of the prosthesis.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Facial defects secondary to the treatment of neoplasms, congenital malformations, and trauma result in multiple functional and psychosocial difficulties. Prosthetic rehabilitation attempts to restore these facial disfigurements and may improve the level of function and self-esteem for these patients. However, a limited number of studies have evaluated the change in perceived quality of life after maxillofacial prosthetic rehabilitation. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate patients' perceptions of treatment with adhesive-retained and implant-retained facial prostheses and to assess differences in overall satisfaction with these 2 types of treatments. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this study, a questionnaire with 28 items was administered for evaluation of perceptions of appearance, comfort, fit and irritation, reliability of retention, frequency of wear, ease of placement and removal, level of self-consciousness, and value of treatment. Subjects were categorized into 2 groups: adhesive-retained group (n=16) and implant-retained group (n=19). Comparisons were made for each item in the questionnaire using Fisher exact tests (alpha=.05). RESULTS: The implant group reported higher positive ratings on all 28 questionnaire items when compared with the adhesive group. Statistically significant (P<.05) differences between the implant and adhesive groups were noted for ease of placement and removal, frequency of wear at home, and quality of retention during various activities, such as home chores and when perspiring or sneezing/coughing. CONCLUSION: The implant-retained facial prosthesis offers significant enhancement over an adhesive-retained prosthesis with respect to ease of use and retention during a variety of daily activities, resulting in greater use of the prosthesis.
Authors: Magdalena Błaszczyk; Jadwiga Gabor; Tomasz Flak; Zygmunt Wróbel; Andrzej S Swinarew Journal: Materials (Basel) Date: 2022-06-12 Impact factor: 3.748
Authors: John D Peipert; Jennifer L Beaumont; Rita Bode; Dave Cella; Sofia F Garcia; Elizabeth A Hahn Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2013-09-24 Impact factor: 4.147
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