Objective:The aim of this cross-sectional study was to compare the masticatory performance and oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) of edentulous maxillectomy patients with and without implant-supported obturator prostheses. Material and methods:Nineteen edentulous maxillectomy patients with completed prosthetic obturator treatment in the upper jaw participated in this study. In nine patients, the obturator prosthesis was supported by implants in the remaining bone of the midface and/or skull base to improve retention. Masticatory performance was measured objectively by the mixing ability test (MAT) and subjectively by three OHRQoL questionnaires: (a) the Oral Health Impact Profile for EDENTulous people (OHIP-EDENT), (b) the Obturator Function Scale (OFS), and (c) the Dutch Liverpool Oral Rehabilitation Questionnaire version 3 (LORQv3-NL). The independent t test and the Mann-Whitney U test were used to test for differences in outcomes of patients with and without implant-retention of their obturator prostheses.Results: Patients with implant-supported obturator prostheses had significantly better masticatory and oral function, reported fewer chewing difficulties, and had less discomfort during food intake than did patients with a conventional obturator. Conclusion:Supporting prosthetic obturators after maxillectomy with implants improve oral functioning, chewing, and eating comfort. This treatment modality is a viable technique to improve the functionality of prosthetic rehabilitation in patients who have undergone maxillectomy. K E Y W O R D S dental implant, mastication, maxillary defect, maxillofacial reconstruction, midfacial defect, obturator, quality of life S U PP O RTI N G I N FO R M ATI O N Additional supporting information may be found online in the Supporting Information section. How to cite this article: Buurman DJM, Speksnijder CM, Engelen BHBT, Kessler P. Masticatory performance and oral health-related quality of life in edentulous maxillectomy patients: A cross-sectional study to compare implantsupported obturators and conventional obturators. Clin Oral

Background: Dental Class II is the most common indication for combined orthodontic-orthognathic treatment. Intermolar mandibular distraction osteogenesis (IMDO) treatment was performed during the growth spurt, to avoid surgery at a later age. The aim of this study is to present our first experience with IMDO. Methods: This is a retrospective case series of patients who underwent an IMDO. All patients showed mandibular retrognathism, and orthodontic treatment with functional appliances was not successful. Results: In total, 20 patients (mean age of 14.8 years (SD = 0.9 ys) were included. All patients achieved a Class I occlusion. An average length gain of 9.6 mm (SD = 3.7 mm) was reached. In one patient an abscess occurred. Nine patients presented with root fractures of the second molar; three were lost, one treated endodontically. The average time between insertion and removal of the distractors was 4.6 months (SD = 1.5 mths). In one case a premature consolidation was seen. Conclusion: We achieved satisfactory results with IMDO, although undesirable effects occurred. An advantage is the manageable overall treatment time. Open questions concern the occurrence of root fractures. Furthermore, the question of long-term stability is open. The question of dynamic distraction treatment in relation to temporomandibular joint changes can only be answered in the long term.