Comparison of speech and aesthetic outcomes in patients with maxillary reconstruction versus maxillary obturators after maxillectomy.

BACKGROUND: Two options exist for restoring structure and function after maxillectomy. Prosthodontic rehabilitation requires that an obturator be constructed to address the oronasal communication that exists after resection of the maxilla. Surgical reconstruction of the defect is another option, often accomplished with the use of bone-containing flaps.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether prosthetic rehabilitation or surgical reconstruction of the maxilla provides better speech and facial aesthetic outcomes after maxillectomy. DESIGN, PARTICIPANTS, AND MEASURES: Fifty-nine patients in three groups were included: 23 patients with maxillary obturators, 16 patients with maxillary reconstruction, and 20 patients without any maxillary defects but who were diagnosed with nasopharyngeal cancer and who served as a control group. Using digitized photographs, facial attractiveness was rated on a 10-point scale by eight judges who were blinded to treatment group. Speech outcomes included nasalance, velopharyngeal orifice opening, and speech intelligibility. RESULTS AND
CONCLUSIONS: There were no significant between-group differences found for facial attractiveness ratings. However, patients in either group who had involvement of the orbital rim or the orbital rim and zygoma were rated as significantly less attractive than those without such involvement. With respect to speech outcomes, the control group (ie, nasopharynx) had smaller velopharyngeal orifice areas than the obturator group; however, this was not clinically significant as scores in both groups were within normal limits. In conclusion, this study found no differences between surgical reconstruction or prosthodontic intervention of maxillary defects when facial attractiveness was assessed by naive raters and speech outcomes were assessed using objective measurements.