alexa Fate of implant-retained craniofacial prostheses: life span and aftercare.
Surgery

Surgery

Reconstructive Surgery & Anaplastology

Author(s): Visser A, Raghoebar GM, van Oort RP, Vissink A

Abstract Share this page

Abstract PURPOSE: To assess the need for surgical and prosthetic aftercare of craniofacial prostheses supported by endosseous implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective clinical study assessing the surgical and prosthetic aftercare from implant placement to last visit of follow-up was performed in consecutively treated patients with implant-retained craniofacial prostheses in a department of oral and maxillofacial surgery between 1988 and 2003. RESULTS: Ninety-five patients were rehabilitated with implant-retained craniofacial prostheses. Mean follow-up was 88 months (median, 79 months). Two hundred seventy implants were placed; 153 implants in the mastoid region, 99 in the orbital region, and 18 in the nasal region. The craniofacial defects were due to genetic disorders (24 patients), trauma (12 patients), and ablative tumor surgery (59 patients). In the latter group, 104 implants (33 patients) were placed in irradiated bone. Thirty implants were lost; 8 implants in nonirradiated bone (95.2\% overall implant survival rate; mastoid, 95.7\%; orbit, 94.1\%; nose, 87.5\%) and 22 implants in irradiated bone (78.8\% overall implant survival rate; mastoid, 86.2\%; orbit, 73.8\%; nose, 90.0\%). Irrespective of the craniofacial defect, on average every 1.5 to 2 years a new facial prosthesis was made, mostly for reasons because of discoloration (31.2\%), problems with attachment of the acrylic resin clip carrier to the silicone (25.3\%), rupture of the silicone (13.3\%), or bad fit (10.9\%). Severe skin reactions around implants or beneath prostheses were only observed in the orbital region. CONCLUSION: Implant-retained craniofacial prostheses are a reliable treatment option for the restoration of craniofacial defects. The need for surgical aftercare was minor, and prosthetic aftercare predominantly consisted of making new prostheses.
This article was published in Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants and referenced in Reconstructive Surgery & Anaplastology

Relevant Expert PPTs

Relevant Speaker PPTs

Recommended Conferences

Relevant Topics

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