Osseointegrated implant‐retained auricular prosthesis constructed using cone‐beam computed tomography and a prosthetically driven digital workflow: a case report

Abstract

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.

Applications of CAD/CAM Technology for Craniofacial Implants Placement and Manufacturing of Auricular Prostheses—Systematic Review

“…As illustrated by Table 2 a–c, the case reports were authored by the following: Ciocca L, Scotti R. 2004 [ 26 ], Sykes et al, 2004 [ 27 ], Jiao et al, 2004 [ 28 ], Ciocca L et al, 2007 [ 29 ], Kurtulmus et al, 2009 [ 17 ], Ciocca L et al, 2009 [ 30 ], Ciocca. L et al, 2010 [ 32 ], De Crescenzio F et al, 2011 [ 33 ], Liacouras et al, 2011 [ 34 ], Kolodney et al, 2011 [ 35 ], Bai et al, 2012 [ 37 ], Reitemeier et al, 2012 [ 38 ], Hatamleh and Watson 2013 [ 39 ], Wang et al, 2015 [ 42 ], Nuseir et al, 2015 [ 43 ], Weissler et al, 2017 [ 45 ], Yadav et al, 2017 [ 46 ], Nafij Bin Jamayet et al, 2018 [ 47 ], Unkovskiy et al, 2018 [ 48 ], Sanghavi, et al, 2018 [ 49 ], Cevik and Kocacikli 2020 [ 52 ], Domingue D. et al, 2021 [ 54 ], Unkovskiy et al, 2021 [ 55 ], Dashti et al, 2022 [ 56 ], Heydenrych A et al, 2023 [ 58 ] showed a low risk of bias. Meanwhile, Table 3 a,b showed that the case series authored by Turgut et al, 2009 [ 31 ], Verma et al, 2010 [ 22 ], Karatas MO et al, 2011 [ 36 ], Bai et al, 2014 [ 40 ], Tam CK et al, 2014 [ 8 ], Watson and Hatamleh 2014 [ 41 ], Choi et al, 2016 [ 44 ], Ferreira R, Vives P 2019 [ 50 ], Vijverberg MA et al, 2019 [ 51 ], McHutchion and Aalto 2021 [ 53 ], and Hatamleh MM et al, 2022 [ 57 ] presented a low risk of bias.…”

Digital surgical planning and placement of osseointegrated implants to retain an auricular prosthesis using implant software with cone‐beam computed tomography and 3D‐printed surgical guides: A case report

“…For the final prosthesis, three of these four implants were fitted with abutments and attachments, and provided a structurally stable and highly esthetic result (as seen if Figure 9A and Figure 10), described in detail elsewhere. [Domingue et al] 21 The 3D-printed surgical guides and CBCT guidance enabled osteotomy and implant placement in sound bone, avoiding intraoperative complications such as bleeding, inner cortical perforations of the pneumatized mastoid portion into underlying tissues, angulation discrepancies, or compromised osseointegration, thus optimizing a prosthetically driven approach to the surgical phase, and in turn, also optimizing the final prosthetic result, seen in Figure 9A (with contralateral ear, seen in Figure 9B) and Figure 10 (patient's right profile with prosthesis in place) and described in detail elsewhere. [Domingue et al In press.]…”

“…A,Completed prosthesis in place (fabrication described elsewhere [In press; Ref 21…”

“…For the final prosthesis, three of these four implants were fitted with abutments and attachments, and provided a structurally stable and highly esthetic result (as seen if Figure 9A and Figure 10), described in detail elsewhere. [Domingue et al] 21 …”

“…]). B, Contralateral ear, used for fabricating prosthesis (fabrication described elsewhere In press; Ref 21…”