We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants
Login:
username:

password:

Plattform:

Forgotten password?

Registration

Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 23 (2008), No. 1     15. Jan. 2008
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 23 (2008), No. 1  (15.01.2008)

Page 89-98, PubMed:18416416


Fate of Implant-Retained Craniofacial Prostheses: Life Span and Aftercare
Visser, Anita / Raghoebar, Gerry M. / Oort, Robert P. van / Vissink, Arjan
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.

Keywords: aftercare, craniofacial prostheses, extraoral implants, implant survival, radiotherapy