Anita Visser1, Gerry M Raghoebar, Robert P van Oort, Arjan Vissink. 1. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthetics, Department of Oral Function and Prosthetic Dentistry, University Medical Center Groningen, The Netherlands. a.visser@kchir.umcg.nl
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the need for surgical and prosthetic aftercare of craniofacial prostheses supported by endosseous implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective clinical study assessing the surgical and prosthetic aftercare from implant placement to last visit of follow-up was performed in consecutively treated patients with implant-retained craniofacial prostheses in a department of oral and maxillofacial surgery between 1988 and 2003. RESULTS: Ninety-five patients were rehabilitated with implant-retained craniofacial prostheses. Mean follow-up was 88 months (median, 79 months). Two hundred seventy implants were placed; 153 implants in the mastoid region, 99 in the orbital region, and 18 in the nasal region. The craniofacial defects were due to genetic disorders (24 patients), trauma (12 patients), and ablative tumor surgery (59 patients). In the latter group, 104 implants (33 patients) were placed in irradiated bone. Thirty implants were lost; 8 implants in nonirradiated bone (95.2% overall implant survival rate; mastoid, 95.7%; orbit, 94.1%; nose, 87.5%) and 22 implants in irradiated bone (78.8% overall implant survival rate; mastoid, 86.2%; orbit, 73.8%; nose, 90.0%). Irrespective of the craniofacial defect, on average every 1.5 to 2 years a new facial prosthesis was made, mostly for reasons because of discoloration (31.2%), problems with attachment of the acrylic resin clip carrier to the silicone (25.3%), rupture of the silicone (13.3%), or bad fit (10.9%). Severe skin reactions around implants or beneath prostheses were only observed in the orbital region. CONCLUSION: Implant-retained craniofacial prostheses are a reliable treatment option for the restoration of craniofacial defects. The need for surgical aftercare was minor, and prosthetic aftercare predominantly consisted of making new prostheses.
PURPOSE: To assess the need for surgical and prosthetic aftercare of craniofacial prostheses supported by endosseous implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective clinical study assessing the surgical and prosthetic aftercare from implant placement to last visit of follow-up was performed in consecutively treated patients with implant-retained craniofacial prostheses in a department of oral and maxillofacial surgery between 1988 and 2003. RESULTS: Ninety-five patients were rehabilitated with implant-retained craniofacial prostheses. Mean follow-up was 88 months (median, 79 months). Two hundred seventy implants were placed; 153 implants in the mastoid region, 99 in the orbital region, and 18 in the nasal region. The craniofacial defects were due to genetic disorders (24 patients), trauma (12 patients), and ablative tumor surgery (59 patients). In the latter group, 104 implants (33 patients) were placed in irradiated bone. Thirty implants were lost; 8 implants in nonirradiated bone (95.2% overall implant survival rate; mastoid, 95.7%; orbit, 94.1%; nose, 87.5%) and 22 implants in irradiated bone (78.8% overall implant survival rate; mastoid, 86.2%; orbit, 73.8%; nose, 90.0%). Irrespective of the craniofacial defect, on average every 1.5 to 2 years a new facial prosthesis was made, mostly for reasons because of discoloration (31.2%), problems with attachment of the acrylic resin clip carrier to the silicone (25.3%), rupture of the silicone (13.3%), or bad fit (10.9%). Severe skin reactions around implants or beneath prostheses were only observed in the orbital region. CONCLUSION: Implant-retained craniofacial prostheses are a reliable treatment option for the restoration of craniofacial defects. The need for surgical aftercare was minor, and prosthetic aftercare predominantly consisted of making new prostheses.
Authors: Ethan L Nyberg; Ashley L Farris; Ben P Hung; Miguel Dias; Juan R Garcia; Amir H Dorafshar; Warren L Grayson Journal: Ann Biomed Eng Date: 2016-06-13 Impact factor: 3.934