No abstract

No abstract

Surgical treatment of malignancies in the oral cavity (mandible, tongue, floor of the mouth, alveolus, buccal sulcus) often results in an unfavourable anatomic condition for prosthodontic rehabilitation. Hence, maxillofacial prosthetic rehabilitation becomes a mightier task when resection is accompanied by radiation therapy. In selected cases, implant therapy comes to rescue. The following report throws light on the case of prosthetic rehabilitation of a patient who underwent right marginal mandibulectomy and right partial glossectomy, with the aid of a single implant, semi precision attachment and magnet supported partial denture.

Midfacial defects are enormous defects that result from cancer treatment that rarely are corrected by surgical reconstruction alone; they generally require a facial prosthesis to restore function and appearance. Surgical reconstruction may be viable for few defects, which are done with different flaps. But for the total nasal resection, prosthetic option would be more feasible. Nasal cartilaginous anatomy is complex due to the varying contours. Therefore it may be difficult for the surgeon to reconstruct the entire nose. This clinical report describes the rehabilitation of a large mid-facial nose defect with a dental implant retained nasal prosthesis. The patient had adenocystic carcinoma of the medial maxillary wall extending to the nose.

Context: Oral cancer surgery leads to hard- and soft-tissue loss which can affect the quality of life of the individuals. Maxillofacial prosthodontics focuses on optimizing the disrupted oral function of individuals whose rehabilitation will serve as a psychosocial therapy. Aim: The aim of this study was to assess the oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) after the maxillofacial prosthetic rehabilitation following cancer resection surgery. Settings and Design: The sample comprised 15 oral cancer patients who agreed to maxillofacial prosthesis (MFP) after surgery. Materials and Methods: Oral function and OHRQoL were evaluated pre- and postmaxillofacial prosthetic rehabilitation. The masticatory function, swallowing function, and articulatory function were evaluated. The OHRQoL was evaluated by OHIPJ-14 questionnaire. Descriptive methods such as frequency, percentage, mean, and standard deviation were calculated. Statistical Analysis: Descriptive statistics was used to analyze the results. Results: A statistically significant difference was observed between prescores and postscores of dysphagia score (P = 0.05) and OHIP-J14 score (P = 0.00). No statistically significant differences were evident in perceived chewing ability (P = 0.29) and intelligibility score (P = 0.43). A statistically significant difference was evident in the prescore and postscore of OHIP-J14 subscales: functional limitations (P < 0.05), physical pain (P < 0.05), psychological discomfort (P < 0.05), physical disability (P < 0.05), psychological disability (P < 0.05), and handicap (P < 0.05), before and after maxillofacial prosthetic treatment except for social disability (P > 0.05). Conclusion: OHRQoL significantly improved with maxillofacial prosthetic rehabilitation.