PURPOSE: This study aimed to review the current state of the techniques and materials used to rehabilitate maxillofacial defects. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched for articles pertinent to maxillofacial prostheses published from January 1990 to July 2011. The main clinical stages were the subject of analysis. RESULTS: A multidisciplinary approach is preferred when rehabilitating maxillofacial defects. Surgical reconstruction can be used for smaller defects, but larger defects require a prosthesis to achieve an esthetic rehabilitation. Implant retained prostheses are preferred over adhesive prostheses. Silicone elastomer is currently the best material available for maxillofacial prostheses; however, longevity and discoloration, which are greatly influenced by ultraviolet radiation, microorganisms, and environmental factors, remain significant problems. In the near future, the widespread availability and cost effectiveness of digital systems may improve the workflow and outcomes of facial prostheses. Patients report high satisfaction with their prostheses despite some areas that still need improvement. CONCLUSIONS: Maxillofacial prostheses are a reliable treatment option to restore maxillofacial defects and improve quality of life. Significant progress has been made in the application of implants for retention and digital technology for designing surgical guides, suprastructures, and craniofacial prostheses. Further improvements are necessary to enhance longevity of prostheses.
PURPOSE: This study aimed to review the current state of the techniques and materials used to rehabilitate maxillofacial defects. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched for articles pertinent to maxillofacial prostheses published from January 1990 to July 2011. The main clinical stages were the subject of analysis. RESULTS: A multidisciplinary approach is preferred when rehabilitating maxillofacial defects. Surgical reconstruction can be used for smaller defects, but larger defects require a prosthesis to achieve an esthetic rehabilitation. Implant retained prostheses are preferred over adhesive prostheses. Silicone elastomer is currently the best material available for maxillofacial prostheses; however, longevity and discoloration, which are greatly influenced by ultraviolet radiation, microorganisms, and environmental factors, remain significant problems. In the near future, the widespread availability and cost effectiveness of digital systems may improve the workflow and outcomes of facial prostheses. Patients report high satisfaction with their prostheses despite some areas that still need improvement. CONCLUSIONS: Maxillofacial prostheses are a reliable treatment option to restore maxillofacial defects and improve quality of life. Significant progress has been made in the application of implants for retention and digital technology for designing surgical guides, suprastructures, and craniofacial prostheses. Further improvements are necessary to enhance longevity of 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
Authors: Nina Ariani; Anita Visser; Margot R I M Teulings; Melissa Dijk; Tri Budi W Rahardjo; Arjan Vissink; Henny C van der Mei Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2015-04-07 Impact factor: 3.573