Factors contributing to the acceptance of extraoral prostheses by the patient. A
case report
Grigoris POLYZOIS, Irini KARABOUTA-VOULGAROPOULOU, Artemis NIARCHOU, Polyxeni NTALA
Department of Prosthodontics (Movable Prosthodontics), Dental School of Athens, Greece
Hellenic Archives of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery (2011) 3, 179-187
SUMMARY: Maxillofacial defects can be caused by trauma, congenital disorders or ablative tumour surgery. Reconstruction of such defects can be achieved either surgically or prosthetically, depending on their site, size, aetiology and severity, as well as the patient’s age and desire. When aesthetic and functional demands cannot be surgically met, prosthetic reconstruction can prove to be an efficient alternative to surgery. In ear defects, the use of osseointegrated implants can solve the problem of limited retention provided by adhesives and mechanical means. In this case, retention is achieved by means of magnets, bar-clip constructions, or ball attachments. The success of extraoral prosthetic rehabilitation depends on the sound knowledge of the principles governing facial harmony, colour selection and mixture, retention, adaptation, prosthesis weight, durability and biocompatibility. The aim of this article is to present the modifications made to an ear prosthesis replacement in order to increase retention and stability, improve the aesthetic outcome and promote the patient’s quality of life.
KEY WORDS: ear prosthesis, implants, retention, magnets, bar, patient’s acceptance.
REFERENCES
Brecht LE: Craniofacial and maxillofacial prosthetics in Grabb and Smith’s plastic surgery. 5th edition, SJ Aston, RW Beasley and CHM Thorne, Lippincott-Raven Publishers Philadelphia 1997, pp 463-471
Demir N, Malkoc MA, Ozturk AN, Tosun Z: Implant retained auricular prosthesis. J Craniofac Surg 21: 1795-1797, 2010
De Souza AA, Mattos BSC: Magnetic retention and bar –clip attachment for implant retained auricular prostheses: a comparative analysis. Int J Prosthodont 21: 233-236, 2008
Dos Santos DM, Goiato MC, Pesqueira AA, Bannwart LC, Rezende MCRAR, Filho OS, Moreno A: Prosthesis auricular with osseointegrated implants and quality of life. J Craniofac Surg 21: 94-96, 2010
Goiato MC, Delben JA, Monteiro DR, Dos Santos DM: Retention systems to implant supported craniofacial prostheses. J Cranioafac Surg 20: 889-891, 2009 (a)
Goiato MC, Ribeiro PDP, Pellizzer EP, Garcia Yunior IR, Pesqueira AA, Haddad MF: Photoelastic analysis of stress distribution in different retention systems for facial prosthesis. J Craniofac Surg 20: 757-761, 2009 (β)
Granström G, Bergström K, Tjellström A: The bone anchored episthesis for congenital ear malformations. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 109: 464-473, 1993 Granström G, Bergström K, Tjellström A, Brå nemark P : A detailed analysis of titanium implants lost in irradiated tissues. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 9: 653-662, 1994
Gumieiro EH, Dib LL, Jahn RS, Ferreira Dos Santos Junior J, Nannmark U, Granstrom G, Abrahao M: Bone anchored titanium implants for auricular rehabilitation: case report and review of literature. Sao Paulo Med J 127: 160-165, 2009
Hatamleh MM, Haylock C, Watson J, Watts DC: Maxillofacial prosthetic rehabilitation in the UK: a survey of maxillofacial prosthetists’ and technologists’ attitudes and opinions. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 39: 1186-1192, 2010
Hooper SM, Westcott T, Evans PLL, Bocca AP, Jagger DC: Implantsupported facial prostheses provided by a maxillofacial unit in a UK regional hospital: longevity and patient opinions. J Prosthodont 14: 32-38, 2005
Johnson F, Cannavina G, Brook I, Watson J: Facial prosthetics: techniques used in the retention of prostheses following ablative cancer surgery or trauma and for congenital defects. Eur J Prosthodont Rest Dent 8: 5-9, 2000
Karakoca S, Aydin C, Yilmaz H, Bal BT: Survival rates and periimplant soft tissue evaluation of extraoral implants over a mean follow up period of three years. J Prosthet Dent 100: 458-464, 2008
Karakoca S, Aydin C, Yilmaz H, Bal BT: Retrospective study of treatment outcomes with implant-retained extraoral prostheses: survival rates and prosthetic complications. J Prosthet Dent 103: 118-126, 2010
Lovely M, Munitathnam N aidu E, Chandrasekharan Nair K, Subramoniam R, Komath M, Varma HK: Design and development of an implant system for auricular prosthesis. Trends Biomater Artif Organs 24: 11-18, 2010
Menner A: A pocket guide to the ear. New York: Thieme Medical Publishers 2003; p: 13 Polyzois GL: Color stability of facial silicone prosthetic polymers after outdoor weathering. J Prosthet Dent 82: 447-450, 1999
Schoen PJ, Raghoebar GM, Van Oort RP, Reintsema H, Van Der Laan BFAM, Burlage FR, Roodenburg JLN, Vissink A: Treatment outcome of bone anchored craniofacial prostheses after tumor surgery. Cancer 92: 3045-3050, 2001
Scolozzi P, Jaques B: Treatment of midfacial defects using prostheses supported by ITI dental implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 114: 1395- 1404, 2004 Thomas KF: Freestanding magnetic retention for extraoral prosthesis with osseointegrated implants. J Prosthet Dent 73: 162-165, 1995
Tjellström A, Rosenhall U, Lindstrom, J, Hallen O, Albrektsson, Brånemark PI: Five year experience with skin penetrating bone anchored implants in the temporal bone. Acta Otolaryngol 95: 568-575, 1983
Tjellström A, Yontchen E, Lindström J, Βrånemark PL: Five year experience with bone anchored auricular prostheses. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 93: 366-372, 1985
Wright RF, Zemnick C, Wazen J, Asher E: Osseointergrated implants and auricular defects: a case series study. J Prosthodont 17: 468- 475, 2008
How to cite this article:
View the full-text PDF:
|
![]()
|