Literature DB >> 26054445

The current state of facial prosthetics – A multicenter analysis.

Oliver C Thiele1, Jörn Brom2, Anton Dunsche3, Michael Ehrenfeld4, Philippe Federspil5, Bernhard Frerich6, Frank Hölzle7, Martin Klein8, Matthias Kreppel9, Alexander C Kübler10, Norbert R Kübler11, Martin Kunkel12, Johannes Kuttenberger13, Günter Lauer14, Boris Mayer15, Christopher Mohr16, Andreas Neff17, Michael Rasse18, Rudolf H Reich19, Siegmar Reinert20, Daniel Rothamel9, Robert Sader21, Henning Schliephake22, Rainer Schmelzeisen23, Alexander Schramm24, Peter Sieg25, Hendrik Terheyden26, Jörg Wiltfang27, Christoph M Ziegler28, Robert A Mischkowski15, Joachim E Zöller9.   

Abstract

Even though modern surgical techniques are dominating reconstructive facial procedures, the capability to use facial epitheses for reconstruction is still an important skill for the maxillofacial surgeon. We present an international multicenter analysis to clarify which techniques are used to fixate facial prostheses. We contacted all maxillofacial departments in Germany, Austria, Switzerland and Norway which were registered with the German society for oral and maxillofacial surgery (DGMKG). These centers were asked via electronical mail to provide information on the type of epithesis fixation systems currently in use. The return rate from 58 departments was 43.1% (n = 25). Overall, implant fixation was the preferred fixation system (92%). Plates were the second most common fixation technique (32%). No centers reported the standard use of non-invasive fixation techniques for permanent epithesis fixation. The main retention systems in use were magnets (24/25), other retention systems are used much less often. The current preferred fixation technique for facial epitheses consists of implant-based, magnet-fixated epitheses. For nasal prostheses, a plate-based, magnet-fixated system is often used.
Copyright © 2015 European Association for Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:  Anaplastology; Facial epithesis; Facial prosthesis; Maxillofacial surgery; Plastic and reconstructive surgery

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26054445     DOI: 10.1016/j.jcms.2015.04.024

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Craniomaxillofac Surg        ISSN: 1010-5182            Impact factor:   2.078


  3 in total

1.  Complex functional and epithetic rehabilitation after ablation of recurrent retroauricular basal cell carcinoma - a case study.

Authors:  Waldemar Reich; Anika Exner; Eileen Winter; Bilal Al-Nawas; Alexander Walter Eckert
Journal:  GMS Interdiscip Plast Reconstr Surg DGPW       Date:  2017-12-18

2.  [Optimized fitting of a midface implant to anchor a magnetic nasal prosthesis using 3D printing].

Authors:  Christian Wrobel; Daniel Keppeler; Alexander C Meyer
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2021-08-31       Impact factor: 1.284

3.  Monoscopic photogrammetry to obtain 3D models by a mobile device: a method for making facial prostheses.

Authors:  Rodrigo Salazar-Gamarra; Rosemary Seelaus; Jorge Vicente Lopes da Silva; Airton Moreira da Silva; Luciano Lauria Dib
Journal:  J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2016-05-25
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.