• Submission Form (PDF)
• Author Guidelines (PDF)
• Submit

• Accepted Manuscripts

Back

Volume 23 , Issue 1
January/February 2008
Pages 89–98

Fate of Implant-Retained Craniofacial Prostheses: Life Span and Aftercare

Anita Visser, DMD/Gerry M. Raghoebar, DMD, MD, PhD/Robert P. van Oort, DMD, PhD/Arjan Vissink, DMD, MD, PhD

PMID: 18416416

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. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2008;23:89–98

Key words: aftercare, craniofacial prostheses, extraoral implants, implant survival, radiotherapy

Full Text PDF File | Order Article

 

 

Adobe Acrobat Reader is required to view PDF files. This is a free program available from the Adobe web site.
Follow the download directions on the Adobe web site to get your copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader.