Palatomaxillary Obturation and Facial Prosthetics in Head and Neck Reconstruction

Abstract

Rehabilitation of head and neck defects following trauma, oncologic resection, or congenital malformation is a challenging task. Not only is the restoration of three-dimensional form necessary for acceptable cosmesis, but simultaneous restoration of functional speech and swallow is also essential for optimal reconstruction outcomes. While advances in free tissue transfer have allowed surgical reconstruction of head and neck defects once considered inoperable and associated with poor quality of life, not all patients are ideal surgical candidates. As such, nonsurgical solutions to both functional and cosmetic restoration remain a necessary alternative option. Facial prostheses and palatomaxillary obturators have evolved with increasingly biocompatible materials as well as retention systems to address significant defects that challenge the limits of surgical reconstruction.

Keywords

prosthetic - palatal obturation - facial reconstruction

Publikationsverlauf

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
24. Dezember 2020

• References

• 1 Weins JP, Wiens RL. Psychological management of the maxillofacial prosthetic patient. In: Clinical Maxillofacial Prosthetics. Chicago, IL: Quintessence Publishing; 2000: 1-14
• 2 Raghoebar GM, van Oort RP, Roodenburg JL, Reintsema H, Dikkers FG. Fixation of auricular prostheses by osseointegrated implants. J Invest Surg 1994; 7 (04) 283-290
• 3 Brown KE. Peripheral consideration in improving obturator retention. J Prosthet Dent 1968; 20 (02) 176-181
• 4 Haug SP. Maxillofacial prosthetic management of the maxillary resection patient. Atlas Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am 2007; 15 (01) 51-68
• 5 Visser A, Raghoebar GM, van Oort RP, Vissink A. Fate of implant-retained craniofacial prostheses: life span and aftercare. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2008; 23 (01) 89-98
• 6 Kiat-Amnuay S, Gettleman L, Goldsmith LJ. Effect of multi-adhesive layering on retention of extraoral maxillofacial silicone prostheses in vivo. J Prosthet Dent 2004; 92 (03) 294-298
• 7 Dahl JE, Polyzois GL. Irritation test of tissue adhesives for facial prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 2000; 84 (04) 453-457
• 8 Huband M. Prosthetic rehabilitation. Dermatol Clin 2011; 29 (02) 325-330 , x
• 9 Federspil PA. Implant-retained craniofacial prostheses for facial defects. GMS Curr Top Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2009; 8: Doc03
• 10 Voigt A, Christ S, Klein M. Experimental analysis of retention forces of different magnetic devices for bone-anchored auricular facial prostheses. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2008; 37 (07) 664-668
• 11 de Sousa AA, Mattos BS. Magnetic retention and bar-clip attachment for implant-retained auricular prostheses: a comparative analysis. Int J Prosthodont 2008; 21 (03) 233-236
• 12 Ariani N, Visser A, van Oort RP. et al. Current state of craniofacial prosthetic rehabilitation. Int J Prosthodont 2013; 26 (01) 57-67
• 13 Aramany MA. Basic principles of obturator design for partially edentulous patients. Part II: design principles. J Prosthet Dent 1978; 40 (06) 656-662
• 14 Parr GR, Tharp GE, Rahn AO. Prosthodontic principles in the framework design of maxillary obturator prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 1989; 62 (02) 205-212
• 15 Schwartzman B, Caputo AA, Beumer J. Gravity-induced stresses by an obturator prosthesis. J Prosthet Dent 1990; 64 (04) 466-468
• 16 Ducic Y. An effective, inexpensive, temporary surgical obturator following maxillectomy. Laryngoscope 2001; 111 (02) 356-358
• 17 Nair A, Regish KM, Shah FK, Prithviraj DR. Reconstruction of a midfacial defect using an intraoral-extraoral combination prosthesis employing magnets: a clinical report. J Clin Exp Dent 2012; 4 (03) e186-e188
• 18 Nilanonth S, Shakya P, Chotprasert N, Srithavaj T. Combination prosthetic design providing a superior retention for mid-facial defect rehabilitation: a case report. J Clin Exp Dent 2017; 9 (04) e590-e594
• 19 Giot JP, Labbé D, Soubeyrand E. et al. Prosthetic reconstruction of the auricle: indications, techniques, and results. Semin Plast Surg 2011; 25 (04) 265-272
• 20 Montgomery PC, Kiat-Amnuay S. Survey of currently used materials for fabrication of extraoral maxillofacial prostheses in North America, Europe, Asia, and Australia. J Prosthodont 2010; 19 (06) 482-490
• 21 Menick FJ. Nasal reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2010; 125 (04) 138e-150e
• 22 Scott N, Kittur MA, Evans PL, Dovgalski L, Hodder SC. The use of zygomatic implants for the retention of nasal prosthesis following rhinectomy: the Morriston experience. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2016; 45 (08) 1044-1048
• 23 Chrcanovic BR, Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A. Survival and complications of zygomatic implants: an updated systematic review. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2016; 74 (10) 1949-1964
• 24 Futran ND, Mendez E. Developments in reconstruction of midface and maxilla. Lancet Oncol 2006; 7 (03) 249-258
• 25 Mishra SK, Ramesh C. Reproduction of custom-made eye prosthesis manoeuvre: a case report. J Dent Oral Hyg 2009; 1: 59-63
• 26 Pruthi G, Jain V, Rajendiran S, Jha R. Prosthetic rehabilitation after orbital exenteration: a case series. Indian J Ophthalmol 2014; 62 (05) 629-632
• 27 Parr GR, Goldman BM, Rahn AO. Surgical considerations in the prosthetic treatment of ocular and orbital defects. J Prosthet Dent 1983; 49 (03) 379-385
• 28 Toljanic JA, Eckert SE, Roumanas E. et al. Osseointegrated craniofacial implants in the rehabilitation of orbital defects: an update of a retrospective experience in the United States. J Prosthet Dent 2005; 94 (02) 177-182
• 29 Federspil PA. Ear epistheses as an alternative to autogenous reconstruction. Facial Plast Surg 2009; 25 (03) 190-203
• 30 Salinas TJ. Prosthetic rehabilitation of defects of the head and neck. Semin Plast Surg 2010; 24 (03) 299-308
• 31 Subaşı MG, Alnıaçık G, Kalaycı A, Akman S, Durmuş E. Prosthetic rehabilitation of partial ear defect: 2 case reports. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2014; 14 (Suppl. 01) 196-201
• 32 Younis I, Gault D, Sabbagh W, Kang NV. Patient satisfaction and aesthetic outcomes after ear reconstruction with a Branemark-type, bone-anchored, ear prosthesis: a 16 year review. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2010; 63 (10) 1650-1655