No abstract

Objectives/Hypothesis The current role of maxillofacial prosthetic care for head and neck cancer patients is not well understood. Additionally, perceived barriers for service provision are unknown. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the current role of maxillofacial prosthetic care at National Cancer Institute (NCI)–designated comprehensive cancer centers and to identify perceived barriers to care. Study Design Multicenter, cross‐sectional survey of head and neck division leaders at NCI‐designated comprehensive cancer centers. Methods Each head and neck division leader from the 47 NCI‐designated comprehensive cancer centers was invited to participate. The main outcomes of this study were: 1) to evaluate the current role of maxillofacial prosthetics for the surgically treated head and neck cancer patient within NCI‐designated comprehensive cancer centers and 2) to identify perceived barriers to care. Measured outcomes were obtained from an anonymous online survey and reported. Results Twenty‐eight of the 47 head and neck service chiefs responded (60% response rate). Respondents expressed preference for prosthetic rehabilitation for hard palate/upper gum, auricular, and nasal defects. Local flap or free tissue transfer was preferred for lower gum and soft palate defects. Cost‐related factors were among the most reported perceived barriers to maxillofacial prosthetic care. Conclusions Maxillofacial prosthetics have an important role in the rehabilitation of the head and neck cancer patient. Perceived barriers for services exist, particularly as it relates to cost. Providers should be aware that these issues are likely to be more severe in regional or community centers. Level of Evidence NA Laryngoscope, 129:409–414, 2019

This case report aims to describe in detail a complication associated with resorption of regenerated bone following implant placement and ridge augmentation using recombinant human bone morphogenic protein-2 (rhBMP-2) in combination with allograft and xenograft. Bilateral maxillary sinus and ridge augmentation procedures were completed using rhBMP-2 combined with allograft and xenograft. Five months later, significant bone augmentation was achieved, which allowed for the placement of 4 implants. Upon stage 2 surgery, significant dehiscence was noted in all implants. Treatment steps to address this complication included implant removal, guided bone regeneration with xenograft only, and placement of new implants followed by soft-tissue grafting. At the time of publication, this patient is status 1½ years post case completion with maintenance of therapy outcomes. Off-label use of rhBMP-2 has gained significant acceptance in implant dentistry. However, there is limited evidence regarding the bone maturation process when rhBMP-2 is combined with other biomaterials. More research may be needed regarding the timing and process of bone healing in the presence of rhBMP-2, in an effort to avoid surgical complications.