| Literature DB >> 24799904 |
Chi Keung Tam1, Colman Patrick McGrath2, Samuel Mun Yin Ho3, Edmond Ho Nang Pow4, Henry Wai Kuen Luk5, Lim Kwong Cheung1.
Abstract
Introduction. The psychosocial and quality of life (QoL) of patients with deformed or missing ears are frequently compromised. The aim of this study is to develop innovative techniques using CAD/CAM technology in prosthetic auricular rehabilitation and provide improvement in the treatment outcomes, including their psychology and QoL. Methods. This is a preliminary clinical cohort study. Six patients requesting for auricular reconstruction were recruited and rehabilitated with implant-supported prosthesis using CAD/CAM technology. Different treatment outcomes including QoL and psychological changes were assessed at different time points. Results. A significant reduction in severity of depressive symptoms (P = 0.038) and an improving trend of satisfaction with life were found at 1 year postoperatively when compared with the preoperative findings. The domain scores in ''Body image", ''Family/friends/strangers", and ''Mood" were also significantly higher (P < 0.05) at 1 year postoperatively than 1 week postoperatively. However, only 50% of the patients wear their auricular prosthesis regularly. Conclusion. This preliminary study has confirmed that implant-supported auricular prosthesis could induce improvement in the psychology and QoL with statistically significant differences in the domains of the body image, social interaction, and mood. Our present findings can inform research design and hypotheses generation of future studies.Entities:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24799904 PMCID: PMC3988852 DOI: 10.1155/2014/393571
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Dent ISSN: 1687-8728
Figure 1Case illustration of a patient with microtia. (a) Patient's right ear showing microtia. (b) Patient's left ear showing normal shaped ear. (c) Two implants were placed into the mastoid bone. (d) Wound closure with healing abutment exposed. (e) Patient's right ear showing the auricular prosthesis.
Intra-operative complications encountered.
| Complications encountered | Superior implant | Inferior implant |
|---|---|---|
|
|
| |
| During implant placement | ||
| Dura exposure | 0 | 0 |
| Dura perforation | 0 | 0 |
| Bleeding | 0 | 1 |
| During immediate placement | ||
| Retention | ||
| Inadequate retention | 3 | |
| Unsuccessful bonding | 1 | |
| Prosthesis | ||
| poor marginal accuracy | 1 | |
| Poor stability | 0 | |
| Inadequate function | 1 | |
| Asymmetrical/Poor position | 0 | |
| Wrong color matching | 1 | |
Figure 2(a) Prosthesis position checked with Soft Touch (BrainLAB) digitized probe. (b) Screen shot of checking of the prosthesis position using the Soft Touch digitized probe to compare with preplanned position intraoperatively.
Significance of changes in mean PCS scores of the SF-36 over the study period.
| Physical component score | Mean | SD |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-operative | 56.8 | 6.5 | |
| 1 week | 45.9 | 8.2 | 0.007* |
| 3 months | 53.3 | 6.6 | 0.065 |
| 6 months | 52.7 | 3.4 | 0.055 |
| 1 year | 53.4 | 3.3 | 0.156 |
*P value derived from paired t-test comparison with pre-operative scores.
Significance of changes in mean MCS scores of the SF-36 over the study period.
| Mental component score | Mean | SD |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-op | 45.4 | 10.6 | |
| 1 week | 50.0 | 8.6 | 0.256 |
| 3 months | 46.3 | 9.1 | 0.783 |
| 6 months | 47.0 | 9.6 | 0.693 |
| 1 year | 50.3 | 6.9 | 0.233 |
*P value derived from paired t-test comparison with pre-operative scores.
Significance of changes in mean TOMCP-52 scores over the study period.
| TOMCP-52 | Mean | SD |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 week | 65.3 | 10.1 | |
| 3 months | 69.8 | 11.5 | 0.245 |
| 6 months | 70.3 | 9.9 | 0.353 |
| 1 year | 80.7 | 10.7 | 0.030* |
*P value derived from paired t-test comparison with Week 1 scores.
TOMCP scores over the time points.
| Domain score | 1 week (mean/SD) | 3 months (mean/SD/ | 6 months (mean/SD/ | 1 year (mean/SD/ |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fit and Retention | 62.3/31.3 | 67.5/14.8/0.682 | 57.1/19.0/0.714 | 82.1/14.9/0.370 |
| Comfort | 61.7/17.2 | 78.3/14.7/0.044* | 63.3/14.8/0.839 | 86.1/15.4/0.075 |
| Aesthetics | 63.4/10.3 | 70.4/9.1/0.251 | 66.7/9.6/0.666 | 86.6/15.1/0.037* |
| Maintenance | 68.1/20.7 | 77.8/17.2/0.158 | 81.9/17.8/0.224 | 84.7/17.8/0.270 |
| Body image | 63.1/12.1 | 64.3/14.8/0.733 | 72.2/15.9/0.079 | 77.4/14.4/0.001* |
| Leisure | 73.3/18.6 | 74.2/15.8/0.776 | 78.1/10.8/0.374 | 77.2/14.2/0.450 |
| Work/school | 71.3/21.5 | 72.2/12.7/0.842 | 75.0/11.0/0.530 | 75.9/10.3/0.550 |
| Family/friends/strangers | 57.4/15.6 | 59.3/19.1/0.833 | 63.9/8.4/0.402 | 76.9/12.9/0.047* |
| Mood | 60.3/9.2 | 64.7/11.7/0.304 | 73.4/12.6/0.039* | 81.7/15.5/0.003* |
| Sexuality | 75.0/23.0 | 73.6/28.1/0.771 | 79.2/21.6/0.415 | 79.2/14.7/0.518 |
*P-values ≤ 0.05 showing significant difference.
P: P-value derived from paired t-test comparison with Week 1 scores.
Clinical exposure of implants.
| Case | Abutment length/mm | Clinical exposure/mm | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sup | Inf | Immediate post-op | 1-2 weeks post-op | 1-month post-op | 3-month post-op | 6-month post-op | ||||||
| Sup | Inf | Sup | Inf | Sup | Inf | Sup | Inf | Sup | Inf | |||
| 1 | 6 | 6 | 1 | 0.5 | 1.25 | 0.75 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 |
| 2# | 10 | 10 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | NA | NA | 0 | 0 |
| 3 | 4 | 6 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 4.25 | 3 | 3 | 4.8 | 1.75 | 3 |
| 4# | 4 | 6 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 2.8 | 0 | 2.875 | 0 | 4.5 | 0 | 4 |
| 5# | 4.5 | 4.5 | 4.5 | 4.5 | 0 | 1 | NA | NA | NA | NA | 3 | 3 |
| 6 | 4.5 | 4.5 | 2.5 | 3 | 2.5 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3.75 | 3.375 | 2.25 | 2 |
Sup: superior implant; inf: inferior implant;
#Patients who refused to wear the ear prosthesis since 3-month postop.
NA: Not Applicable.
Comparison of the clinical abutment exposure in patients willing and those unwilling to wear the ear prosthesis.
| Immediate post-op | 1-2 week post-op | 6-month post-op | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sup | Inf | Sup | Inf | Sup | Inf | |
| Willing to wear | ||||||
| Mean exposure (mm) | 1.33 | 1.33 | 1.75 | 1.75 | 2 | 2.33 |
| Standard deviation | 1.04 | 1.44 | 0.66 | 1.15 | 0.25 | 0.58 |
| Difference when compares with immediate post-op using pair | No (0.15) | No (0.15) | No (0.14) | No (0.21) | ||
|
| ||||||
| Unwilling to wear | ||||||
| Mean exposure (mm) | 3.50 | 3.17 | 0 | 1.27 | 1 | 2.33 |
| Standard deviation | 1.32 | 1.26 | 0 | 1.42 | 1.73 | 2.08 |
| Difference when compared with immediate post-op using pair | Yes (0.02) | No (0.09) | Yes (0.04) | No (0.23) | ||
Figure 3Persistent adverse periabutment skin response around the gold alloy abutments.