Maxillofacial prosthetic rehabilitation: A survey on the quality of life
until further notice
SourceJournal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 120, 5, (2018), pp. 780-786
Article / Letter to editor
Display more detailsDisplay less details
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
SubjectRadboudumc 10: Reconstructive and regenerative medicine RIHS: Radboud Institute for Health Sciences; Radboudumc 9: Rare cancers RIHS: Radboud Institute for Health Sciences
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Maxillofacial prostheses, especially those supported by endosseous implants, are regarded as a viable, secure treatment for the reconstruction of facial defects to restore quality of life. The long-term quality of life of patients treated with facial prostheses with different retentive systems is unclear. PURPOSE: The purpose of this clinical study was to assess the long-term quality of life of patients treated with facial prostheses with different retentive systems over a 14-year period at a Dutch oral and maxillofacial surgery unit. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 66 patients with facial prostheses were inventoried and categorized based on anatomic location and type of retention. A 62-item questionnaire was designed to survey the daily prosthetic use, care, quality, durability, longevity, and reliability of retention. Furthermore, issues relating to general satisfaction, self-image, and socialization frequency were addressed. RESULTS: Completed validated questionnaires were returned by 52 patients. Of the prosthetic replacements, 23% (n=12) were orbital, 33% (n=17) nasal, and 44% (n=23) auricular prostheses. The survey showed that a prosthetic reconstruction led to high satisfaction scores with regard to wearing comfort, anatomic fit, color, and anatomic form. A significant difference was shown for implant-retained facial prostheses, which provided enhanced retention and increased ease of placement and removal (Fisher exact test P=.01 and P=.04). Patients with nasal prostheses were less satisfied with the junction of their prostheses to the surrounding soft tissue and more aware of others noticing their prosthetic rehabilitation. Patients with auricular defects were less embarrassed (P=.01) by their prostheses. Although auricular prostheses were less frequently cleaned (P=.01), no significant difference was found in minor soft tissue complications between different anatomic locations and the various retentive systems. CONCLUSIONS: Implant-retained prostheses have advantages over adhesive-retained prostheses in terms of ease of handling. However, improvements in prosthetic material properties, including color stability and durability, are needed to increase the longevity of facial prostheses.
Upload full text
Use your RU credentials (u/z-number and password) to log in with SURFconext to upload a file for processing by the repository team.