Bone-Anchored Titanium Implants in Patients with Auricular Defects: Three Years and 27 Patients’ Experience

Mevio, E; Facca, Luca; Schettini, Stefano; Mullace, Mauro

doi:10.1155/2016/9872048

Cited by 6 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Quality of life (n=14) [4][5][6][7][8][9]32,39,[59][60][61][62][63][64] Condition specific (specific to facial prostheses) (n=6) [4][5][6][7][8][9] Condition specific (not specific to facial prostheses) (n=5) 39,[59][60][61][62] Generic (n=7) 4,5,32,39,59,63,64 Psychologic health (n=6) 4,32,[65][66][67][68] Psychologic health (n=6) 4,32,[65][66][67][68] Psychosocial (n=1) 67 Other patient reported (n=6) 32,41,44,61,69,70 Preference ...…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Linear Analog Self-Assessment (LASA) 32 or LASA-12 5 Short Form 8 (SF-8 Health Survey), 5 SF-12 Health Survey, 39,63 or SF-36 Health Survey 4,59 World Health Organization Quality of Life Instrument (WHOQOL-BREF) 64 Psychological Cornell Medical Index Questionnaire 65 Self-designed condition-specific questionnaires created by authors 32,65,67,68 Condition-specific questionnaires modified from Sela and Lowental 1980 66 Psychosocial Childhood Experience Questionnaire 67 Other patient reported Preference Preference for attachment system 44 Appearance/function Nasal Appearance and Function Evaluation Questionnaire 61…”

Section: Genericmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Outcome measures in facial prosthesis research: A systematic review

Jablonski

Veale

Coward

et al. 2021

The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Statement of problem. Facial prosthesis research uses a wide variety of outcome measures, which results in challenges when comparing the effectiveness of interventions among studies. Consensus is lacking regarding the most appropriate and meaningful outcome measures to use in facial prosthesis research to capture important perspectives. Purpose. The purpose of the systematic review was to identify and synthesize outcome measures used in facial prosthesis research. Material and methods. Electronic searches were performed in 11 databases (including nonpeer-reviewed literature). The citations were searched, and expert societies were contacted to identify additional studies. Inclusion criteria comprised studies of participants with facial defects who required or had received prosthetic rehabilitation with an external facial prosthesis. Exclusion criteria comprised participants with ocular prostheses, case reports, case series with fewer than 5 participants, laboratory-based studies, and studies published before 1980. Study selection was performed independently by 2 reviewers. Discrepancies were resolved through discussion or by a third reviewer. Outcome measures were synthesized with a categorization approach based on the perspective, theme, and subtheme of the outcome measures. Quality assessment was performed with an appraisal tool that enabled evaluation of studies with diverse designs. Results. Database searching identified 13 058 records, and 7406 remained after duplications were removed. After initial screening, 189 potentially relevant records remained, and 186 full texts were located (98% retrieval rate). After full-text screening, 124 records were excluded. Citation searches and contact with expert societies identified 4 further records. In total, 69 articles (grouped into 65 studies) were included. Studies were categorized as per the perspective of their outcome measures, with the following findings: patient-reported (74% of studies), clinical indicators (34%), clinician-reported (8%), multiple viewpoints (6%), and independent observer-reported (3%). Patient-reported outcome measures included tools to assess satisfaction, quality of life, and psychologic health. Variability in the choice of outcome measures was evident among the studies, with many self-designed, unvalidated, condition-specific questionnaires reported. A greater number of outcome measure themes emerged over time; themes such as service delivery and health state utility have recently been evaluated. Conclusions. Over the past 40 years, facial prosthesis research has focused on patient-reported outcome measures. Outcome measures relating to other perspectives have been used less frequently, although new themes appear to be emerging in the literature. Future research should use outcome measures with appropriate measurement properties for use with facial prosthetics.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Genericmentioning

confidence: 99%

Outcome measures in facial prosthesis research: A systematic review

Jablonski

Veale

Coward

et al. 2021

The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Multiple surgeries are required for graft harvesting, tissue expansion, and cosmetic revision, increasing the morbidity and risk for complications. Bleeding, infection, and hematoma are more frequent in comparison to an auricular prosthesis at the implant and graft site 49. Moreover, overall patient satisfaction is frequently lower due to inconsistent aesthetic outcomes 505152…”

Section: Auricular Prosthesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Bleeding, infection, and hematoma are more frequent in comparison to an auricular prosthesis at the implant and graft site. 49 Moreover, overall patient satisfaction is frequently lower due to inconsistent aesthetic outcomes. [50][51][52] Variations and inconsistencies in surgical practice paved the way for prosthetic reconstruction.…”

Section: Auricular Prosthesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prosthetics in Facial Reconstruction

Klimczak

Helman

Kadakia

et al. 2018

Craniomaxillofacial Trauma & Reconstruction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reconstruction of the head and neck can be a challenging undertaking owing to numerous considerations for successful rehabilitation. Although head and neck defects were once considered irretrievably morbid and associated with a poor quality of life, advances in surgical technique has immensely contributed to the well-being of these patients. However, all patients are not suitable surgical candidates and many have sought nonsurgical options for functional and cosmetic restoration. As such, the advent of prostheses has ameliorated those concerns and provided a viable alternative for select patient populations. Prosthetic reconstruction has evolved significantly over the past decade. Advances in biocompatible materials and imaging adjuncts have spurred further discovery and forward progress. A multidisciplinary approach to head and neck reconstruction focused on appropriate expectations and patient-centered goals is most successfully coordinated by a team of head and neck surgeons, maxillofacial surgeons, and prosthetic specialists. The aim of this article is to provide a comprehensive review of the current trends for prosthetic rehabilitation of head and neck defects, and further elaborate on the limitations and advancements in the field.

show abstract

“…An Italian study actually showed bleeding, infection, and hematoma to be more frequent with autologous grafting at the implant and graft site than in an auricular prosthesis. 54 Furthermore, patient satisfaction is frequently lower due to inconsistent cosmetic outcomes. 55 If a prosthesis is favored, tragal preservation can help conceal the anterior margin of the prosthesis.…”

Section: Prostheses Auricularmentioning

confidence: 99%

Osseointegrated Implants and Prosthetic Reconstruction Following Skull Base Surgery

Arnaoutakis

Kadakia

et al. 2017

Seminars in Plastic Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Maxillofacial prosthetics refers to an area of dentistry dedicated to the restoration of skull base and maxillofacial defects acquired from tumor ablative surgery, trauma, or congenital defects. Anatomically, the skull base is complex and conceptually intricate due to its three-dimensional (3D) morphology. Although once considered a defect area prone to significant morbidity and poor quality of life, surgical advancements over the past decade have helped curb these fears. Prostheses have proven to be a valuable adjunct in skull base reconstruction, as these can restore function and cosmesis. The goal of this review article is to highlight current options for prosthetic rehabilitation of skull base defects with an emphasis on the advancements and limitations in the field of prosthetic reconstruction. Preoperative PlanningPatients undergoing treatment for skull base tumors often require interdisciplinary collaboration between several clinical specialties to receive comprehensive management. 1 Presurgical planning involves a concerted dialogue between the surgeons and the various disciplines of speech therapy, medical oncology, and radiation oncology. This patient population requires special needs not only for treatment but also for reconstruction and follow-up care. Prior to ablative surgery, the maxillofacial prosthodontist should be consulted to offer input regarding a patient's capacity for functional rehabilitation. Keywords► skull base defects ► tumor ablative surgery ► osseointegrated implants ► prosthetics AbstractRehabilitation following ablative skull base surgery remains a challenging task, given the complexity of the anatomical region, despite the recent advances in reconstructive surgery. Remnant defects following resection of skull base tumors are often not amenable to primary closure. As such, numerous techniques have been described for reconstruction, including local rotational muscle flaps, pedicled flaps with skin paddle, or even free tissue transfer. However, not all patients are appropriate surgical candidates and therefore may instead benefit from nonsurgical options for functional and aesthetic restoration. Osseointegrated implants and biocompatible prostheses provide a viable alternative for such a patient population. The purpose of this review serves to highlight current options for prosthetic rehabilitation of skull base defects and describe their indications, advantages, and disadvantages.

show abstract

Bone-Anchored Titanium Implants in Patients with Auricular Defects: Three Years and 27 Patients’ Experience

Cited by 6 publications

References 19 publications

Outcome measures in facial prosthesis research: A systematic review

Outcome measures in facial prosthesis research: A systematic review

Prosthetics in Facial Reconstruction

Osseointegrated Implants and Prosthetic Reconstruction Following Skull Base Surgery

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About