alexa Challenges and Prospective Applications of Extra-oral Implants for Maxillofacial Rehabilitation | Open Access Journals
ISSN: 2161-1173
Reconstructive Surgery & Anaplastology
Like us on:
Make the best use of Scientific Research and information from our 700+ peer reviewed, Open Access Journals that operates with the help of 50,000+ Editorial Board Members and esteemed reviewers and 1000+ Scientific associations in Medical, Clinical, Pharmaceutical, Engineering, Technology and Management Fields.
Meet Inspiring Speakers and Experts at our 3000+ Global Conferenceseries Events with over 600+ Conferences, 1200+ Symposiums and 1200+ Workshops on
Medical, Pharma, Engineering, Science, Technology and Business

Challenges and Prospective Applications of Extra-oral Implants for Maxillofacial Rehabilitation

Sompop Bencharit*

Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA

*Corresponding Author:
Sompop Bencharit, DDS, MS, PhD, FACP
Assistant Professor
Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
CB#7450, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7450, USA
E-mail: [email protected]

Received Date: June 23, 2012; Accepted Date: June 23, 2012; Published Date: June 26, 2012

Citation: Bencharit S (2012) Challenges and Prospective Applications of Extra-oral Implants for Maxillofacial Rehabilitation. Anaplastology 1:e103. doi:10.4172/2161-1173.1000e103

Copyright: © 2012 Bencharit S. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Visit for more related articles at Reconstructive Surgery & Anaplastology

Abstract

Since Branemark introduced the concept of osseointegration over three decades ago, dental implants have been widely used to replace teeth and, more importantly, to retain or support intra- and extra-oral prostheses. While intra-oral dental implants are well-developed and thoroughly studied, this is not the case for the extra-oral implants. There are only a handful of longitudinal studies for extra-oral implants. These studies along with several case reports suggest that the success criteria and complications of extra-oral implants are unique to the implant sites. For instance the auricular implants have a survival rate close to 100%. However the success rates were about 75-90% for the nasal and orbital implants (Abu-Serriah et al. [1], Karakoca et al. [2], Curi MM et al. [3]). Not only does the uniqueness of anatomic structures affect the survival rate of the extra-oral implants, but often times the maxillofacial patients lose anatomical structure from surgical resection and may also undergo chemotherapy or radiation therapy. These pre-prosthetic treatments can further compromise the survival of the implants and increase complications. In addition to this, the extra-oral environment seems to predispose the implants to soft tissue infection that is distinct from the intra-oral implants, where it is rare to have similar soft tissue complications (Arcuri M et al. [4], Abu-Serriah et al. [1]). The improvement of surgical technique, post-op care, and prosthetic fabrication may have improved the implant survival rate and reduced complications (Curi M et al. [3], Goiato et al. [5]).

Since Branemark introduced the concept of osseointegration over three decades ago, dental implants have been widely used to replace teeth and, more importantly, to retain or support intra- and extra-oral prostheses. While intra-oral dental implants are well-developed and thoroughly studied, this is not the case for the extra-oral implants. There are only a handful of longitudinal studies for extra-oral implants. These studies along with several case reports suggest that the success criteria and complications of extra-oral implants are unique to the implant sites. For instance the auricular implants have a survival rate close to 100%. However the success rates were about 75-90% for the nasal and orbital implants (Abu-Serriah et al. [1], Karakoca et al. [2], Curi MM et al. [3]). Not only does the uniqueness of anatomic structures affect the survival rate of the extra-oral implants, but often times the maxillofacial patients lose anatomical structure from surgical resection and may also undergo chemotherapy or radiation therapy. These pre-prosthetic treatments can further compromise the survival of the implants and increase complications. In addition to this, the extra-oral environment seems to predispose the implants to soft tissue infection that is distinct from the intra-oral implants, where it is rare to have similar soft tissue complications (Arcuri M et al. [4], Abu-Serriah et al. [1]). The improvement of surgical technique, post-op care, and prosthetic fabrication may have improved the implant survival rate and reduced complications (Curi M et al. [3], Goiato et al. [5]).

Recent major advancement in digital dentistry allows significant improvement in the treatment planning for extra-oral implant placement and prothesis fabrication. Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) provides an accurate measurement of available osseous structure. Furthermore, computer-aided design (CAD) in combination with rapid-prototyping of the surgical guide help surgeons in planning for grafting/reconstructing the implant site and placing implants in a more precise manner, and improve the surgeon’s communication with maxillofacial prosthodontists (Van der Meer et al. [6]). This perhaps accounts for the improvement of implant survival rates, especially in the nasal and orbital areas, and the reduction of complications. The digital application also facilitates the fabrication of prostheses.

Because of the larger market share, simplicity of implant placement, and low cost of the components, intra-oral dental implants are widely used, well-developed, and thoroughly studied. Improvement of the designs and applications of intra-oral implants are driven by commercial demands and competitions. While there is some recent advancement in extra-oral implants and maxillofacial implantretained/ supported prostheses, there is not much development in terms of implant designs and applications, because of limited demand compared to the intra-oral implants/prostheses. The designs and applications of current commercially available extra-oral implants are based solely on the intra-oral ones. In addition to this, the utilization of intra-oral implants is not only driven solely by specialists. Both general dentists and specialists use intra-oral dental implants. While about half of the intra-oral implants are placed by dental specialists, the majority of them are restored by general dentists. Unlike the intra-oral implants, the placement of extra-oral implants require trained oral and maxillofacial or ENT surgeons and most often can only be done in an operating room. The fabrication of the prostheses can only be done by trained prosthodontists or maxillofacial prosthodontists. The extra-oral implant prosthesis is therefore a more complex and costly treatment compared to the intra-oral counterpart.

One of the advantages of extra-oral implant prostheses is that the treatment is often covered by medical insurance in most developed countries. In the US, while the placement of implants in the operating room and in-patient care may be covered by medical insurance, the fabrication of prostheses may not be. Recent debates in the US on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as Health Care Reform that will be enforced in 2014, may have critical effects in helping patients to pay for their maxillofacial prostheses. The US Supreme Court is now reviewing the legality of the Health Care Reform. The court decision will undoubtedly change how patients may or may not be able to afford an implant-retained/supported maxillofacial prosthesis.

In conclusion, we have to carefully apply the knowledge from a limited number of long-term follow up studies of extra-oral implants, and combine this with knowledge from intra-oral and orthopedic implants to further advance the field of extra-oral implant prosthetics. More multi-center based prospective studies with larger populations will be needed to provide sufficient data to examine the effectiveness of implant designs together with the applications of digital technology. We also need to advocate at the government and private sectors for the benefit of filling this gap of knowledge to improve the care for patients with an extra-oral prosthesis.

References

Select your language of interest to view the total content in your interested language
Post your comment

Share This Article

Relevant Topics

Recommended Conferences

Article Usage

  • Total views: 11853
  • [From(publication date):
    December-2012 - Aug 23, 2017]
  • Breakdown by view type
  • HTML page views : 8070
  • PDF downloads :3783
 

Post your comment

captcha   Reload  Can't read the image? click here to refresh

Peer Reviewed Journals
 
Make the best use of Scientific Research and information from our 700 + peer reviewed, Open Access Journals
International Conferences 2017-18
 
Meet Inspiring Speakers and Experts at our 3000+ Global Annual Meetings

Contact Us

 
© 2008-2017 OMICS International - Open Access Publisher. Best viewed in Mozilla Firefox | Google Chrome | Above IE 7.0 version
adwords