Challenges and Prospective Applications of Extra-oral Implants for Maxillofacial Rehabilitation
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
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.
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. , Karakoca et al. , Curi MM et al. ). 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. , Abu-Serriah et al. ). 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. , Goiato et al. ).