V I Akinmoladun1, O O Dosumu2, A A Olusanya3, O F Ikusika2. 1. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, College of Medicine, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria. viakinmoladun@yahoo.com 2. Department of Restorative Dentistry, College of Medicine, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria. 3. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, College of Medicine, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The term "maxillectomy" has been used to describe a variety of surgical procedures for a spectrum of diseases involving a diverse anatomical site. Hence, classifications of maxillectomy defects have often made communication difficult. This article highlights this problem, emphasises the need for a uniform system of classification and suggests a classification system which is simple and comprehensive. METHODS: Articles related to this subject, especially those with specified classifications of maxillary surgical defects were sourced from the internet through Google, Scopus and PubMed using the search terms maxillectomy defects classification. A manual search through available literature was also done. The review of the materials revealed many classifications and modifications of classifications from the descriptive, reconstructive and prosthodontic perspectives. RESULTS: No globally acceptable classification exists among practitioners involved in the management of diseases in the mid-facial region. There were over 14 classifications of maxillary defects found in the English literature. CONCLUSION: Attempts made to address the inadequacies of previous classifications have tended to result in cumbersome and relatively complex classifications. A single classification that is based on both surgical and prosthetic considerations is most desirable and is hereby proposed.
INTRODUCTION: The term "maxillectomy" has been used to describe a variety of surgical procedures for a spectrum of diseases involving a diverse anatomical site. Hence, classifications of maxillectomy defects have often made communication difficult. This article highlights this problem, emphasises the need for a uniform system of classification and suggests a classification system which is simple and comprehensive. METHODS: Articles related to this subject, especially those with specified classifications of maxillary surgical defects were sourced from the internet through Google, Scopus and PubMed using the search terms maxillectomy defects classification. A manual search through available literature was also done. The review of the materials revealed many classifications and modifications of classifications from the descriptive, reconstructive and prosthodontic perspectives. RESULTS: No globally acceptable classification exists among practitioners involved in the management of diseases in the mid-facial region. There were over 14 classifications of maxillary defects found in the English literature. CONCLUSION: Attempts made to address the inadequacies of previous classifications have tended to result in cumbersome and relatively complex classifications. A single classification that is based on both surgical and prosthetic considerations is most desirable and is hereby proposed.