Display options
Share it on

Oral Implantol (Rome). 2017 Nov 30;10(3):276-282. doi: 10.11138/orl/2017.10.3.276. eCollection 2017.

Prosthetic management of patients with oro-maxillo-facial defects: a long-term follow-up retrospective study.

ORAL & implantology

G Gastaldi, L Palumbo, C Moreschi, E F Gherlone, P Capparé

Affiliations

  1. Dental School, Vita-Salute University, Milan, Italy (Dean: Prof. Enrico Felice Gherlone).

PMID: 29285330 PMCID: PMC5735392 DOI: 10.11138/orl/2017.10.3.276

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study is to determine the outcome of maxillofacial prosthetic rehabilitation after oncological resections, including both intra- and extra-oral prosthetic devices.

METHODS: In this study were included 72 patients, who have undergone an intra or extra-oral maxillofacial prosthetic rehabilitation after an oncologic resection. Tumors on the head and neck were analyzed and the defects of these resections have been divided in two different groups: intra and extra-oral defects.

RESULTS: 72 participants were treated with maxillofacial prosthesis, 3 of which with post-traumatic wounds and 69 with resections of tumors on the head and neck. Of the 69 treated for neoplastic disease, 43 received an intraoral prosthesis (palatal obturator) and 29 with an extraoral epithesis (18 with nasal prostheses, 8 with orbital implants and 3 with ear implants). The group included patients with different types of tumors. All the patients were evaluated in terms of aesthetic appearance after the construction of the prostheses and the results were satisfactory.

CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this study, after the use of maxillofacial protheses patients feel more confident and self-assured. Maxillofacial protheses are a good solution in order to improve the life's quality in patients with tumors resections: prostheses are easy to handle and provide a satisfying social interaction for the patients.

Keywords: cancer; defect; maxillofacial; prosthodontics

Conflict of interest statement

Funding No funding were requested for this study. The Authors had no conflict of interest in connection to this study.

References

  1. J Oral Rehabil. 1998 Feb;25(2):153-8 - PubMed
  2. Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 1997 Aug;30(4):631-45 - PubMed
  3. Arch Facial Plast Surg. 2000 Apr-Jun;2(2):91-101 - PubMed
  4. GMS Curr Top Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2009;8:Doc03 - PubMed
  5. Head Neck. 2016 Apr;38 Suppl 1:E619-24 - PubMed
  6. J Prosthodont. 2008 Jun;17(4):336-9 - PubMed
  7. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 1994 Aug;103(8 Pt 1):660-3 - PubMed
  8. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2016 Aug;18(4):725-34 - PubMed
  9. Sensors (Basel). 2009;9(1):568-601 - PubMed
  10. J Oral Rehabil. 2001 Sep;28(9):821-9 - PubMed
  11. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2016 Jan;97:131-42 - PubMed
  12. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2004 Nov;114(6):1405-16; discussion 1417-9 - PubMed
  13. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1999 Sep;121(3):203-9 - PubMed
  14. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2006 Feb 15;7(1):89-96 - PubMed
  15. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2016 Jun;102:47-54 - PubMed
  16. Adv Otorhinolaryngol. 2010;68:65-80 - PubMed
  17. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2004 Nov;114(6):1395-404 - PubMed
  18. Laryngoscope. 2000 Aug;110(8):1241-50 - PubMed
  19. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2003 Feb;111(2):594-8; discussion 599-600 - PubMed
  20. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2008 Dec;134(12):1299-304 - PubMed

Publication Types