scholarly journals Maxillofacial prosthodontists are needed for the rehabilitation of patients with congenital and acquired craniofacial defects

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Syed Murtaza Raza Kazmi ◽  
Farhan Raza Khan
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Simple Classification ◽  
Maxillofacial Prosthesis ◽  
Craniofacial Defects

Maxillofacial Prosthodontics (MFP) is a super-specialty of prosthodontics that involves around rehabilitation of patients presenting with congenital maxillofacial defects or craniofacial disabilities acquired due to disease such as cancer or trauma. (1) There are several types of prostheses that can be designed and fabricated by a maxillofacial prosthesis to improve the quality of life of patients. A simple classification is shown in figure 1. Continuous...

scholarly journals Maxillofacial Prosthesis: A Review of Treatment Concepts for Better Prosthesis Prognosis

2017 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 95-99
Author(s):  
Sanjay Prasad
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Soft Tissue ◽  
Patient Care ◽  
Dental Implant ◽  
Dramatic Improvement ◽  
Facial Defect ◽  
Maxillofacial Prosthesis ◽  
Treatment Concepts ◽  
Difficult Challenge

Maxillofacial prosthesis currently finds itself experiencing more change than at any other time over past 50 years of its recognized existence. Rehabilitation of facial defect, either congenital or acquired, is a difficult challenge for the surgeon as well as prosthodontist. The prosthodontist is limited by the properties of the materials available for facial restorations, the mobility of soft tissue surrounding the defects, the difficulty of establishing retention for large prosthesis, and the patient ability to accept the outcome. However, the acceptance of prosthesis recently has improved remarkably due to better coordination between surgeon and prosthodontist and introduction of dental implant which has dramatically improved the retention and esthetic that result from accurate and repeatable positioning of the implant, and the ease of maintenance.  Dramatic improvement in the acceptance of prosthesis is seen if the prosthodontist participation can begin early in the course of patient care which ultimately will increase the quality of life (QoL) of the patient.

scholarly journals RETENTION IN MAXILLOFACIAL PROSTHESIS: A LITERATURE REVIEW

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. 879-887
Author(s):  
Saranya YS ◽  
◽  
Suja Joseph ◽  
Aby Mathew T ◽  
Annie Susan Thomas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Psychological Health ◽  
Economic Factors ◽  
Body Parts ◽  
Maxillofacial Region ◽  
Maxillofacial Prosthesis ◽  
Physical And Psychological Health ◽  
The Aesthetic ◽  
Shape And Size

Defects in the maxillofacial region can be congenital or acquired, and may negatively affect their physical and psychological health, hence such defects require rehabilitation to improve the quality of life. Maxillofacial prosthesis helps in substituting these missing body parts. The mode of retention is always challenging. Apart from the various modes of retention available, a thorough treatment planning can give a better quality of maxillofacial prostheses. The type of retentive to be given depends on several factors such as the shape and size of the defect, the systemic conditions and the age of the patient. Using ideal retentive aids along with the aesthetic, functional and economic factors helps in achieving successful outcomes.

scholarly journals Impact of mandibular resection guidance prostheses on oral health related quality of life (OHRQoL) - A prospective study

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 79-85
Author(s):  
Parithimar Kalaignan ◽  
Syed Ershad Ahmed
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Oral Health ◽  
Prospective Study ◽  
Health Related Quality ◽  
Maxillofacial Prosthesis ◽  
Related Quality ◽  
Health Related ◽  
A Prospective Study ◽  
The Impact

This prospective study was aimed to measure the impact of mandibular resection guidance prostheses on oral health-related quality of life (OHRQol). A total of 35 patients with mandibulectomy defects were included. All the patients were rehabilitated with mandibular resection guidance prostheses respectively. These patients were subjected for assessment of OHRQol. The assessment was done by using OHIP-Edent-19 and a novel scale—maxillofacial prosthesis performance scale (MFPPS). The assessment was done on all the patients at two weeks and three months of prosthesis function. The scores of OHIP-Edent, and MFPPS for mandibular resection guidance prostheses after two weeks were 33.20and 18.74 respectively. The scores of OHIP-Edent and MFPPS for mandibular resection guidance prostheses prostheses at three months were 27.71and 15.20 respectively. These findings show significant improvements of prosthesis in terms of functional, physical, psychological and social parameters after long-term follow-up (3 months).

scholarly journals Prótese obturadora palatina: opção reabilitadora para paciente oncológico maxilectomizado

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (7) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabriela Manucci De Mello ◽  
Marcella Tassi Farina ◽  
Sabrina de Paiva Guedes Henrique ◽  
Marcela Filié Haddad
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Sao Paulo ◽  
São Paulo ◽  
Measurement Instruments ◽  
Oral Rehabilitation ◽  
Maxillofacial Prosthesis ◽  
Osseointegrated Implants ◽  
Carcinoma Epidermoide ◽  
Obturator Prosthesis

Introdução: O tratamento de câncer de boca muitas vezes mutila o paciente fazendo com que o mesmo perca dentes, parte de estrutura de palato, língua ou assoalho, dificultando sua mastigação e fonação, resultando em problemas nutricionais e excluindo-o do convívio social. Neste sentido, a reabilitação protética desse paciente torna-se cada vez mais relevante e tem por objetivo restaurar a estética, função e autoestima perdidas. Objetivo: relatar um caso clínico a respeito da atuação do cirurgião dentista na reabilitação protética de paciente que sofreu maxilectomia parcial decorrente de remoção de tumor. Descrição do caso clinico: Foi confeccionada uma prótese parcial removível obturadora palatina para o arco maxilar e uma prótese parcial removível convencional para o arco mandibular. Conclusão: Este tipo de reabilitação promove restauração oclusal, estética e fonética ao paciente, resultando em melhora da qualidade de vida e permitindo seu retorno ao convívio social sem constrangimentos.Descritores: Neoplasias Bucais; Prótese Maxilofacial; Anormalidades Maxilofaciais; Obturadores Palatinos.ReferênciasAlonso N, Amaral DREC, Kuczynski E. Quality of life among children with cleft lips and palates: a critical review of measurement instruments. Rev Bras Cir Plast. 2011;26(4):639-44.Almeida SDF, Hossotani HM, Moura DGJ. Internal carotid artery thrombosis related to trauma of palate in a child. Rev Paul Pediatr. 2012;30(1):144-47.Dym RJ, Masri D, Shifteh K. Imaging of the paranasal si­nuses. Oral Maxilofac Surg Clin North Am. 2012;24(2):175-89.Regea CCI, Silva YPF. Carcinoma epidermóide no seio maxilar: uma revisão analítica da literatura. Sci Invest Dent. 2013;16(1):29-42.Carvalho VA, Franco MHP, Kovács MJ, Liberato RP, Macieira RC, Veit MT et al. (orgs.). Temas em Psico-oncologia. São Paulo: Summus, 2008.Keyf F. Obturator prosthesis for hemimaxillectomy patients. J Oral Rehabil. 2001; 28(9):821-29.Irish J, Sandhu N, Simpson C, Wood R, Gilbert R, Gullane P et al. Quality of life in patients with maxillectomy prostheses. Head Neck. 2009;31(6):813-21.Kusterer LEFL, Paraguassú GM, Silva VSM, Sarmento VA. Reabilitação com obturador maxilar após cirurgia oncológica: relato de casos. Rev Cir Traumatol Buco-Maxilo-Fac. 2012;12(4):9-16Sharma AB, Beumer J 3rd. Reconstruction of maxillary defects: the case for prosthetic rehabilitation. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2005; 63(12):1770-73.Rezende JRV. Fundamentos da protese buco-maxilo-facial. 2 ed. São Paulo: Savier; 1997.Goiato MC, Piovezan AP, Santos DM, Gennari Filho H, Assunção WG. Fatores que levam à utilização de uma prótese obturadora. Rev Odontol Araçatuba. 2006;27(2):101-6.Silva DP, Almeida FCS, Vaccarezza GF, Brandão TB, Cazal C, Caroli A et al. Reabilitação protética de pacientes maxilectomizados, uma contribuição da odontologia e um convite à reflexão. Pesq Bras Odontoped Clin Integr. 2004;4(2):125-30.Souza RP, Cordeiro FB, González FM, Yamashiro I, Paes Junior AJO, Tornin OS  et al. Maxillary sinus carcinoma: Na analysis of tem cases. Radiol Bras 2006;39(6):397-400.Goiato, MC, Pesqueira AA, Ramos da Silva C,  Gennari Filho H, Micheline dos Santos D. Patient satisfaction with maxillofacial prosthesis, literature review. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2009;62(2): 175-80.Carvalho ACGS, Catro Filho FM, Sousa FB, Magro-Filho O, Romio KB, Nogueira RLM. Immediate oral rehabilitation after partial maxillectomy: a case report. Rev cir traumatol buco-maxilo-fac. 2009; 9(2):33-8.Miracca RAA, Andrade Sobrinho J, Gonçalves AJ. Reconstrução com prótese imediata pós-maxilectomia. Rev Col Bras Cir. 2007;34(5):297-302.Shibayama R, Tiossi R, Campaner M, Queiroz ME, Dallazen E. Reabilitação protética de paciente maxilectomizados: relato de caso. Rev Odont Araçatuba. 2016;37(2):9-16.Bonachela WC; Kaizer OB; Kaizer ROF. Tratamento protético pós-cirúrgico de ameloblastoma de maxila. RFO UPF. 2007;12(2):68-73.Goiato MC, Tabata LF, Archangelo CM, Martins Júnior M. Use of osseointegrated implants associated to retention systems in rehabilitations with oral and maxillofacial prosthesis: a review of literature. Pesq Bras Odontoped Clin Integr. 2007;7(3):331-36.

scholarly journals Classification, History, and Future Prospects of Maxillofacial Prosthesis

2019 ◽  
Vol 2019 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Fernanda Pereira de Caxias ◽  
Daniela Micheline dos Santos ◽  
Lisiane Cristina Bannwart ◽  
Clovis Lamartine de Moraes Melo Neto ◽  
Marcelo Coelho Goiato
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Literature Search ◽  
Clinical Implications ◽  
Clinical Scenario ◽  
Future Prospects ◽  
Future Expectations ◽  
Acrylic Resins ◽  
Maxillofacial Prosthesis ◽  
The Future

This review presents a classification system for maxillofacial prostheses, while explaining its types. It also aims to describe their origin and development, currently available materials, and techniques, predicts the future requirements, and subsequently discusses its avenues for improvement as a restorative modality. A literature search of the PubMed/Medline database was performed. Articles that discussed the history, types, materials, fabrication techniques, clinical implications, and future expectations related to maxillofacial prostheses and reconstruction were included. Fifty-nine articles were included in this review. Maxillofacial prostheses were classified as restorative or complementary with subclassifications based on the prostheses finality. The origin of maxillofacial prostheses is unclear; however, fabrication techniques and materials have undergone several changes throughout history. Currently, silicones and acrylic resins are the most commonly used materials to fabricate customized prostheses. Maxillofacial prostheses not only restore several types of orofacial defects but also improve the patients’ quality of life. Although the current clinical scenario concerning the field of maxillofacial prostheses is promising, improvements in material quality and techniques for maxillofacial prostheses may be expected in the future, to produce better results in the treatment of patients.

MAXILLOFACIAL PROSTHESIS IN THE REHABILITATION OF PATIENTS WITH ORAL TUMORS: CASE ANALYSIS AND IMPACT ON QUALITY OF LIFE

2020 ◽  
Vol 129 (1) ◽  
pp. e103-e104
Author(s):  
GUILHERME HENRIQUE RIBEIRO ◽  
BEATRIZ SCHAFHAUSER DE OLIVEIRA ◽  
CLEUMARA KOSMANN ◽  
ANA LÚCIA SCHAEFER FERREIRA DE MELLO ◽  
MARIÁH LUZ LISBOA ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Case Analysis ◽  
Maxillofacial Prosthesis ◽  
Oral Tumors

scholarly journals Oral Health Related Quality Of Life with Mandibular Resection Prosthesis

2018 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 1423-1428
Author(s):  
Parithimar Kalaignan ◽  
Jaya Shree Mohan
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Oral Health ◽  
Health Impact ◽  
Health Related Quality ◽  
Oral Health Impact Profile ◽  
Maxillofacial Prosthesis ◽  
Related Quality ◽  
Health Related ◽  
Performance Scale

Cancers of the orofacial region can be devastating in their impact on physical structure and function of the affected individual, leading to potentially severe compromises in quality of life. A total of Twenty (20) mandibular resected patients were selected for this study. All the patients’ were rehabilitated with mandibular resection prosthesis. Novel scale known as Maxillofacial Prosthesis Performance Scale (MFPPS) was developed for mandibulectomy patients to assess the oral health related quality of life. This scale has been tested for validity and reliability. The OHRQol was measured using the oral health impact profile (OHIP-Edent-19), Obturator functioning scale (OFS-15) and Maxillofacial Prosthesis Performance Scale (MFPPS-10) with standardized questionnaire after 2 weeks & 3months of prosthesis function for twenty (20) mandibular resected patients. For OHIP –Edent scale; when comparing 2 weeks, all subscale scores shown significant progress on oral health impact profile-Edent scale after 3 months of prosthesis function. For OFS scale; when observing the score of 2 weeks and 3 months, there was dramatic improvement of (75%) in miscellaneous factors which include Problems in dryness of mouth, engagement in social events and obturator positioning. For MFPPS; all rehabilitated patients’ were observed two weeks later, negative impacts have been eliminated and positive impacts increased on oral health. The patient was reviewed again 3months later and confirming an even higher level of overall satisfaction with the Mandibular Resection Prosthesis. The maxillofacial prosthesis had a strong positive impact on quality of life .Hence mandibular resection prosthesis enhance the oral health related quality of life.

scholarly journals RESTORATION OF A POST-SURGICAL DEFECT BY MAGNETIC MAXILLOFACIAL PROSTHESIS: A CASE REPORT

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 44-48
Author(s):  
Muhammad Aamir Rafique ◽  
Safana Khan ◽  
Hira Ahmed
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Psychological Distress ◽  
Case Report ◽  
Simple Method ◽  
Functional Loss ◽  
Maxillofacial Prosthesis ◽  
Successful Approach

ABSTRACT:Edentulous patient with an intra-oral and extra-oral defect suffers from both functional loss and psychological distress. Magnets give a successful approach to rehabilitate the oral functions and improve the quality of life. This case report describes a simple method of fabricating a two part magnetic maxillofacial prosthesis.

scholarly journals Prótese bucomaxilofacial: a Odontologia além da boca

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (6) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabriella Domingues de Carvalho ◽  
Liz Fernandes de Souza ◽  
Thais Oliveira Ferreira ◽  
Gabriela Bento ◽  
Marcela Filié Haddad
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Color Stability ◽  
Acrylic Resin ◽  
Life Assessment ◽  
Prosthetic Rehabilitation ◽  
Endosseous Implants ◽  
Oncological Patient ◽  
Maxillofacial Prosthesis ◽  
Central Mucoepidermoid Carcinoma

A prótese bucomaxilofacial é uma especialidade da Odontologia que visa restaurar indivíduos com perda de estrutura na região de boca e face. Seu ensino ainda é restrito na maioria dos cursos de Odontologia no Brasil, de modo que os cirurgiões dentistas se formam sem conhecer este ramo tão bonito da reabilitação e sem o domínio de conhecimentos teóricos e técnicos sobre o assunto. Deste modo, o objetivo do presente trabalho foi realizar uma revisão de literatura acerca da especialidade de prótese bucomaxilofacial para guiar os cirurgiões-dentistas a respeito de sua indicação, tipos, materiais utilizados e técnica de confecção.Descritores: Prótese Maxilofacial; Prótese Dentária; Reabilitação.ReferênciasAlfenas ER, Lanza CRM, Barreiros ID, Novaes Junior JB, Mendonça LL. Reabilitação protética do paciente com perda de substância na região de cabeça e pescoço. Arq Odontol. 2011;47(2):28-31.Dos Santos DM, de Caxias FP, Bitencourt SB, Turcio KH, Pesqueira AA, Goiato MC.Oral rehabilitation of patients after maxillectomy. A systematic review. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018;56(4):256-66.Gamarra RS, Oliveira JAP, Dib LL. A estética em reabilitação bucomaxilofacial. Rev APCD. 2015;3(1):42-52.de Oliveira FM, Salazar-Gamarra R, Öhman D, Nannmark U, Pecorari V, Dib LL. Quality of life assessment of patients utilizing orbital implant-supported prostheses. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2018;20(4):438-43.Goiato MC, Tabata LF, Archangelo CM, Júnior MM. Uso de implantes ossointegrados associados a sistemas de retenção na reabilitação com próteses bucomaxilofaciais: Revisão de Literatura. Pesq Bras Odontoped Clín Integr. 2007;7(3):231-36.Goiato MC, de Carvalho Dekon SF, de Faria Almeida DA, Sánchez DM, dos Santos DM, Pellizzer EP. Patients' satisfaction after surgical facial reconstruction or after rehabilitation with maxillofacial prosthesis. J Craniofac Surg. 2011;22(2):766-9.Kusterer LEFL, Paraguassú GM, Silva VSM, Sarmento VA. Reabilitação com obturador maxilar após cirurgia oncológica: relato de casos. Rev Cir Traumatol Buco-Maxilo-Fac. 2012;12(4):9-16.Nemli SK, Aydin C, Yilmaz H, Bal BT, Arici YK. Quality of life of patients with implant-retained maxillofacial prostheses: a prospective and retrospective study, J Prosthet Dent. 2013;109(1):44-52.Goiato MC, Pesqueira A.A, Ramos da Silva C, Gennari Filho H, Micheline dos Santos D. Patient satisfaction with maxillofacial prosthesis. Literature review. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2009;62(2):175-80.Simões FG, Reis RC, Dias RB. A especialidade de prótese bucomaxilofacial e sua atuação na Odontologia. Rev Sul Bras Odontol. 2009;6(3):327-31.Aguiar L, Mozzini AR, Lersch E, De Conto F. Obturador palatino: confecção de uma prótese não convencional – relato de caso. Rev Fac Odontol Passo Fundo. 2013;18(1):125-29.Miyashita ER, Mattos BSC, Marafon PG. Sistemas de retenção em prótese obturadora cirúrgica para pacientes maxilectomizados. Pesq Bras Odontoped Clín Integr. 2011;11(2):263-68.Esteves AJ, Costa FCM, Haddad MF. Prosthetic rehabilitation of oncological patient: case report. Arch Health Invest. 2016;5(6): 291-97.Silva DP, Almeida FC, Vaccarezza GF, Brandão TB, Cazal C, Caroli A et al. Reabilitação protética de pacientes maxilectomizados. Uma contribuição da odontologia e um convite à reflexão. Pesq Bras Odontoped Clín Integr. 2004;4(2):125-30.Rezende JRV. Fundamentos da prótese buco-maxilo-facial. São Paulo: Savier, 1997;1:1-10.Tucci R, Antonio LFM, de Carvalhosa AA, Catro PHS, Nunes FD, Pinto Junior DSl. Central mucoepidermoid carcinoma: report of a case with 11 years’ evolution and peculiar macroscopical and clinical characteristics. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2009;14(6):283-86.Sperb LCM, Neves ACC, Rode SM. Considerações sobre prótese ocular: Sua importância na odontologia atual. RGO. 2001;49(4):202-24.Aquino LMM, Oliveira M, Martins APVB, Barbosa CMR. Técnicas de moldagem da máscara facial. Rev Odontol UNESP. 2012;41(6):438-41.Neves ACC, Murgo DA, Campoy CD, Coas VR. Prótese facial combinada. RGO. 2005;53(1):1-4.Sousa AVB, Arriaga MH, Llorca FA, Henar TEl. Prótesis oculo-palpebral. A propósito de un caso clínico. RCOE. 2003;8(5):553-61.Filié Haddad M, Coelho Goiato M, Micheline Dos Santos D, Moreno A, Filipe D'almeida N, Alves Pesqueira A. Color stability of maxillofacial silicone with nanoparticle pigment and opacifier submitted to disinfection and artificial aging. J Biomed Opt. 2011;16(9):095004.Abu-Serriah M, McGowan D, Moos K, Bagg J. Extra-oral craniofacial endosseous implants and radiotherapy. Int J Oral maxillofac Surg. 2003;32(6):585-92.Silva RJ, Seixas ZA. Materiais e métodos de higienização para próteses removíveis. Int J Dent. 2008;7(2):125-32.Antunes AA, Carvalho RWF, Lucas Neto A, Loretto NRM, Silva EDO. Utilização de implantes osseointegrados para retenção de próteses buco-maxilo-faciais: revisão de literatura. Rev Cir Traumatol Buco-Maxilo-Fac. 2008;8(2):9-14.Haddad MF, Goiato MC, Santos DM, Crepaldi Nde M, Pesqueira AA, Bannwart LC. Bond strength between acrylic resin and maxillofacial silicone. J Appl Oral Sci. 2012;20(6):649-54.

scholarly journals Portuguese translation and validation of the YQOL – FD (Youth Quality of Life Instrument—Facial Differences) for brazilian adolescents with craniofacial deformities

2020 ◽  
Vol 36 (5) ◽  
Author(s):  
Paulo Eduardo Damiani ◽  
Daniela Yukie Sakai Tanikawa ◽  
Beatriz Silva Câmara Mattos ◽  
Tatiana Borges Saito Paiva ◽  
Marcia André
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Cleft Lip ◽  
Cleft Lip And Palate ◽  
The United States ◽  
Psychometric Validation ◽  
Portuguese Version ◽  
Maxillofacial Prosthesis ◽  
School Of Dentistry ◽  
Facial Differences

The Youth Quality of Life—Facial Differences (YQOL-FD), validated in the United States in 2005, was developed at the University of Washington by the Seattle Quality of Life Group (SeaQol), to evaluate quality of life of adolescents with facial deformities. Because no Portuguese version exists, the measure was not viable in Brazil. This study aimed to obtain linguistic and psychometric validation of a version of the YQOL-FD in Portuguese. Twenty-five patients with cleft lip and palate and five without facial deformity participated in Traumatology and Maxillofacial Prosthesis Surgery Clinic, School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo. The linguistic validation of the YQOL-FD was carried out by a team consisting of the researcher, as project manager, two native Portuguese-speaking consultants fluent in English, and one native English-speaking consultant fluent in Portuguese. After translation and back-translation, a Portuguese version was obtained, which was applied in a pilot test (n = 10); after the final adjustments the Seattle Quality of Life Group approved the official version of the YQOL-FD in Portuguese. To obtain the psychometric validation, we requested the participation of 20 patients with cleft lip and palate who answered the questionnaire twice in a range of 7 to 15 days. The Cronbach’s alpha test was applied in the 48-item block, showing a high degree of internal consistency (0.949). The Wilcoxon Signal Post Test was applied to verify if the test and retest values were similar; the general agreement was 4/5 = 80%, indicating high reproducibility. It was concluded that the Portuguese version of the YQOL-FD is adequate for evaluating Quality of Life of Brazilian adolescents with craniofacial deformities.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document