PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

John Beumer

Publications and source records attributed to John Beumer.

10 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

Efficacy of conventional and implant-supported mandibular resection prostheses: study overview and treatment outcomes.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: While surgical restoration of mandibular resections has advanced dramatically with free-flap techniques, oral function and patient perceptions of function, as well as treatment outcomes, often indicate significant impairment. PURPOSE: This longitudinal prospective study was designed to determine whether conventional prostheses (CP) or implant-supported prostheses (IP) and current surgical reconstructive procedures restore patients' oral functions and quality of life to their status prior to segmental mandibulectomy with immediate fibula free-flap reconstruction. Study design and implementation, characteristics of the study sample, treatment completion rates, and selected presurgical and postsurgical functional and perceptual outcomes are presented. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Forty-six subjects were enrolled. Longitudinal evaluations of medical and dental histories, oromaxillofacial examinations, questionnaires, and sensory and functional tests were planned before and after surgery and after CP and IP treatment. Sample characteristics are described with descriptive statistics and comparisons of subject responses to questionnaire items at entry and postsurgical intervals were made with Fisher exact tests (alpha=.05). RESULTS: Conventional prostheses were completed in 33 of 46 subjects, and 16 of 33 CP subjects were treated with IP. Reasons for noncompletion of IP were recurrent/metastatic disease (16), refusal of implant therapy (7), lost to follow-up (4), treatment with a reconstruction plate (1), excessive radiation at implant sites (1), and death (1). All 16 recurrences/metastases occurred within 13 months of surgery. Only 3 of the 58 implants placed in 17 participants were considered failures. One failed due to lack of integration 31 weeks following placement, and 2 were buried due to unacceptable positioning for prosthetic restoration during denture fabrication. The remaining 55 implants were successful at final evaluation, ranging from 58 to 123 weeks following implant placement (mean duration=78.9 +/- 16.0 weeks). CONCLUSIONS: While 72% (33/46) of the subjects enrolled were able and willing to complete treatment with CP, only 35% (16/46) completed IP treatment. Careful consideration must be given to selection of the type of prosthetic rehabilitation and the timing of implant placement if an IP is planned.

Adult↗
PubMed2006

Masticatory and swallowing threshold performances with conventional and implant-supported prostheses after mandibular fibula free-flap reconstruction.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Significant strides in microvascular surgical techniques allow predictable restoration of bony and soft tissue orofacial defects. In combination with prosthetic rehabilitation, varying degrees of improvement in esthetics, speech intelligibility, and swallowing have been noted; however, the relative impact of conventional and implant-supported prostheses on restoration of masticatory function are not known. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether conventional or implant-supported dental prostheses and current surgical reconstructive procedures restore patients' masticatory function to presurgical levels. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Of the 46 subjects enrolled in this study, 23 (7 edentulous and 16 partially dentate) completed conventional prosthesis (CP) treatment and masticatory evaluation, and of these, 15 (3 edentulous and 12 partially dentate) completed treatment and evaluation with an implant-supported prosthesis (IP). Standardized masticatory performance tests with peanuts and carrots as the test food were made on the defect and nondefect sides. Tests of swallowing threshold performance were made with carrots as the test food. Statistical analysis included repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) with post hoc Tukey HSD tests (alpha=.05). RESULTS: Masticatory function at entry was markedly compromised. Further performance declines were noted following surgery (PS) on both the defect and nondefect sides. Restoration with CP and IP produced improvements (significant for defect side only, P<.05) in performance over the PS interval and were not significantly different from performances at entry prior to surgery. In addition, the performance on the defect side with the IP was significantly greater than the performance with the CP (P<.001). CONCLUSION: Impairment in masticatory ability remains following free-flap reconstruction prior to prosthetic rehabilitation. Both CP and IP may provide improved masticatory ability, permitting patients to regain the functional level they possessed prior to surgical intervention. The IP may contribute to greater support and stability of the prosthesis, resulting in increased use for mastication and superior performance on the defect side compared to the CP.

Bone Transplantation↗
PubMed2006

Use of osseointegrated implants in the restoration of head and neck defects.

Osseointegrated implants can be applied to facilitate retention, stability, and support for facial and intraoral prostheses used to restore head and neck defects. At the University of California, Los Angeles, Maxillofacial Prosthetics Clinic, retrospective studies have indicated that in nonirradiated maxillectomy patients, implant survival rates are 82.6 percent. In mandibles reconstructed with fibula free flaps, survival rates are 94.6 percent. Similarly, high implant survival rates have been observed for most sites used to support facial prostheses. Cumulative six-year survival rates for auricular sites exceed 95 percent and for floor of nose sites, success rates exceed 87 percent. However, survival rates are low (53 percent) for implants placed in the frontal bone for retention of orbital prostheses and even lower for irradiated bone sites ranging from 63 percent in the maxilla to 27 percent in the orbit.

Bone Transplantation↗
PubMed2005

Osseointegrated craniofacial implants in the rehabilitation of orbital defects: an update of a retrospective experience in the United States.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Since their introduction, craniofacial implants have been used in prosthetic rehabilitation of facial defects. The literature, however, indicates marked variability in outcomes using implants for the retention of orbital prostheses. PURPOSE: A multicenter report updating the experience in the United States with the use of craniofacial implants for prosthetic rehabilitation of orbital defects is presented. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Surveys were sent to clinicians at 25 centers where maxillofacial prosthetic treatment is provided to obtain retrospective data regarding patients who completed implant-retained orbital prosthetic rehabilitation. Data on implant placement location, radiation treatment history, and use of hyperbaric oxygen therapy were collected and assessed in relationship to implant survival over time. The Kaplan-Meier life table and Wilcoxon analyses (alpha = .05) were used to assess the significance of the findings. RESULTS: Ten centers responded, providing data suitable for statistical analysis on 153 implants placed to retain 44 orbital prostheses and followed for a mean period of 52.6 months. Forty-one implant integration failures occurred during this follow-up period, resulting in an overall integration survival rate of 73.2%. No significant relationship was found between radiation treatment history, hyperbaric oxygen therapy history, or implant placement location and implant survival. Individual responses revealed large variability between reporting centers in treatment outcomes. CONCLUSION: Craniofacial implants may offer marked benefits in the prosthetic rehabilitation of orbital defects when compared to conventional adhesive retention designs. However, questions remain regarding long-term predictability and the impact specific factors may have on treatment outcomes. Insufficient data is currently available from which to draw statistically meaningful conclusions. The establishment of a national database designed to acquire adequate data to assess treatment outcomes is recommended.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2005

Treatment satisfaction with facial prostheses.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Facial defects secondary to the treatment of neoplasms, congenital malformations, and trauma result in multiple functional and psychosocial difficulties. Prosthetic rehabilitation attempts to restore these facial disfigurements and may improve the level of function and self-esteem for these patients. However, a limited number of studies have evaluated the change in perceived quality of life after maxillofacial prosthetic rehabilitation. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate patients' perceptions of treatment with adhesive-retained and implant-retained facial prostheses and to assess differences in overall satisfaction with these 2 types of treatments. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this study, a questionnaire with 28 items was administered for evaluation of perceptions of appearance, comfort, fit and irritation, reliability of retention, frequency of wear, ease of placement and removal, level of self-consciousness, and value of treatment. Subjects were categorized into 2 groups: adhesive-retained group (n=16) and implant-retained group (n=19). Comparisons were made for each item in the questionnaire using Fisher exact tests (alpha=.05). RESULTS: The implant group reported higher positive ratings on all 28 questionnaire items when compared with the adhesive group. Statistically significant (P<.05) differences between the implant and adhesive groups were noted for ease of placement and removal, frequency of wear at home, and quality of retention during various activities, such as home chores and when perspiring or sneezing/coughing. CONCLUSION: The implant-retained facial prosthesis offers significant enhancement over an adhesive-retained prosthesis with respect to ease of use and retention during a variety of daily activities, resulting in greater use of the prosthesis.

Adhesives↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Implant-retained prostheses for facial defects: an up to 14-year follow-up report on the survival rates of implants at UCLA.

PURPOSE: An analysis of retrospective data was conducted to establish the survival rates of osseointegrated implants used to retain orbital, nasal, and auricular prostheses over a 14-year period and to recommend guidelines in the restorative treatment of such facial defects. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Included in this study were all patients who received implant-retained prostheses for auricular, nasal, or orbital defects from 1987 to 2001 in the Maxillofacial Clinics at the UCLA and City of Hope Medical Centers. Data were obtained from patient charts. Two methods were used to determine survival rates: (1) the percentage of the total exposed implants that survived was determined, and (2) life table analysis was used to calculate cumulative survival rates at different time intervals. RESULTS: A total of 207 implants were placed in 72 patients, and 182 implants had been uncovered. During the study period, 35 implants failed to integrate, and the survival rate for all exposed implants was 80%. Auricular implants showed the highest survival rate (95%), and orbital implants showed the lowest survival rate (53%). The life table analysis demonstrated a cumulative 6-year survival rate of 92% for auricular implants and 87% for piriform/nasal implants. In contrast, the survival rate for orbital implants showed a steady downward trend and reached 59% at 66 months. CONCLUSION: It is possible to achieve high survival rates of implants in the auricular and piriform/nasal sites through careful presurgical and radiographic planning. The less favorable long-term survival of implants in the orbital rim, especially at irradiated sites, requires further study.

Adolescent↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Profile: Giulio Preti.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Education, Dental↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Histomorphometric and fluorescence microscopic evaluation of interfacial bone healing around 3 different dental implants before and after radiation therapy.

PURPOSE: Radiation therapy influence on bone healing around 3 types of endosseous dental implants in dogs was evaluated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Implants with 3 different surfaces (A = machined commercially pure titanium screws, B = commercially pure titanium plasma spray-coated cylinders, C = hydroxyapatite [HA] -ceramic coated cylinders) were first implanted unilaterally into the right posterior edentulous mandibles of 7 dogs as nonirradiated controls. After 12 weeks without functional loading and after sequential fluorochrome labeling these implants were retrieved by block dissection. In this same surgery, implants were placed on the contralateral side. Three weeks postimplantation the implant-containing hemimandibles were Cobalt 60 irradiated with the biologic equivalent of 5,000 cGy. Twelve weeks postimplantation and after labeling these irradiated implants were retrieved at sacrifice. On scanning electron, light, and fluorescence microscopic images of undecalcified longitudinal ground sections of the implants with surrounding tissues, percent bone-to-implant contact (% BIC), bone formation, and remodeling were histometrically and subjectively evaluated. RESULTS: Woven bone formation started 1 week after implantation at the implant interfaces on both the nonirradiated and the irradiated sides. Average BICs (total/cortical/spongious bone bed) of 26%/49%/36% for surface A, 46%/48%/64% for surface B, and 81%/83%/78% for surface C were observed. In the irradiated hemimandibles average BICs (total/cortical/spongious bone bed) were reduced to 11%/9%/4% for surface A, 43%/46%/43% for surface B, and 63%/85%/76% for surface C, with increased resorption of peri-implant bone and retarded bone formation after irradiation. DISCUSSION: Reductions of total % BIC in all irradiated implants, though not statistically significant, were significant (P < or = .05) on implant surfaces A and B in the spongious bone bed. CONCLUSION: Retarded bone formation on surfaces A and B in the spongious bone bed represented a more radiation-sensitive situation at the time of radiation onset compared to advanced bone formation and maturation at surface C.

Animals↗