PURPOSE: Extraoral maxillofacial prostheses have been fabricated with silicone elastomer for 50 years with few improvements. The objective of this controlled, randomized, prospective, double-blind, single-crossover, multicenter, phase III clinical trial was to determine the noninferiority of chlorinated polyethylene elastomer (CPE) to silicone elastomer for fabricating prostheses. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Forty-two patients were randomly assigned to wear a custom-made prosthesis fabricated from both materials for 4 months and asked to rate their satisfaction (0 = not satisfied, 10 = completely satisfied). Many other measures of prosthesis performance were investigated (see online appendices). RESULTS: Of the 28 patients who completed the study, 68% had used silicone prostheses previously. Overall, patients rated the silicone prosthesis higher than CPE (difference: 2.2, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.9 to 3.6, P = .017). Previous users had a stronger preference for silicone (difference: 3.3, 95% CI: 1.7 to 4.9, P = .001), while the 9 new users rated the two materials similarly (difference: 0.0, 95% CI: -2.1 to 2.1, P = 1.00). CONCLUSIONS: The noninferiority of CPE could not be established because of the early termination of the trial. Previous users of silicone prostheses preferred those made of silicone. However, new users expressed no preference between prostheses fabricated with the low-cost CPE or silicone. The authors have developed original clinical trial methodology for assessing extraoral maxillofacial prostheses.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: Extraoral maxillofacial prostheses have been fabricated with silicone elastomer for 50 years with few improvements. The objective of this controlled, randomized, prospective, double-blind, single-crossover, multicenter, phase III clinical trial was to determine the noninferiority of chlorinated polyethylene elastomer (CPE) to silicone elastomer for fabricating prostheses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-two patients were randomly assigned to wear a custom-made prosthesis fabricated from both materials for 4 months and asked to rate their satisfaction (0 = not satisfied, 10 = completely satisfied). Many other measures of prosthesis performance were investigated (see online appendices). RESULTS: Of the 28 patients who completed the study, 68% had used silicone prostheses previously. Overall, patients rated the silicone prosthesis higher than CPE (difference: 2.2, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.9 to 3.6, P = .017). Previous users had a stronger preference for silicone (difference: 3.3, 95% CI: 1.7 to 4.9, P = .001), while the 9 new users rated the two materials similarly (difference: 0.0, 95% CI: -2.1 to 2.1, P = 1.00). CONCLUSIONS: The noninferiority of CPE could not be established because of the early termination of the trial. Previous users of silicone prostheses preferred those made of silicone. However, new users expressed no preference between prostheses fabricated with the low-cost CPE or silicone. The authors have developed original clinical trial methodology for assessing extraoral maxillofacial prostheses.
Authors: Rachael Y Jablonski; Benjamin J Veale; Trevor J Coward; Andrew J Keeling; Chris Bojke; Sue H Pavitt; Brian R Nattress Journal: J Prosthet Dent Date: 2021-02-10 Impact factor: 3.426