Auricular prostheses and osseointegrated implants: UCLA experience

Implant Retained Auricular Prostheses

“…(Sencimen et al, 2008) (Fig 12) In addition, in cases with two implants, 9 and 11 o'clock positions are recommended. (Nishimura et al, 1995) (Fig 13) After marking the implant sites with surgical pen, a curved incision is used in the skin over the mastoid process approximately 30 mm posterior to the opening of the expected position of the external auditory canal. (Fig 14) Skin and subcutaneous tissue are reflected until the periost was seen.…”

“…(Tjellström et al, 1985, Nishimura et al, 1995 Table 7. The peri-implant soft tissue response on auricular implants evaluated by Karayazgan-Saracoglu et al, 2010 diabetes, alcohol consumption, tobacco use, and alcohol and tobacco use and radiotherapy history.…”

Prosthetic Reconstruction of Auricular Defects with an Adhesive-Retained Epithesis: A Clinical Report

“…Many clinical studies have reported that the use of osseointegrated implants provides a satisfactory retention and improves the acceptance of auricular epithesis [12][13][14][15][16]. Further, craniofacial implants placed in the auricular region have been reported to have excellent survival rates [17][18][19].…”

“…Prosthetic reconstruction of auricular defects presents a great challenge to anaplastologists due to the absence of hard or soft tissue undercuts [12]. Prior to the introduction of craniofacial implants, auricular epitheses were retained by using mechanical tools (spectacle frames, headbands, and steel springs), skin adhesives, or mechanical support of anatomical undercuts (when available) [1,4,13,[16][17][18].…”

“…Prior to the introduction of craniofacial implants, auricular epitheses were retained by using mechanical tools (spectacle frames, headbands, and steel springs), skin adhesives, or mechanical support of anatomical undercuts (when available) [1,4,13,[16][17][18]. However, skin adhesives may lead to adverse tissue reactions, discoloration and deformation at edges of the epithesis, loss of adhesion because of perspiration, and difficulties in maintaining the position of the epithesis [5,12,[16][17][18]. On the other hand, craniofacial implants offer higher retention, allow easier positioning of the epithesis, and eliminate the use of adhesives, thus extending the epithesis survival [14,20].…”