PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Maxillofacial Prosthesis”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 109 records · Page 6Linked to original sources

Biomaterials and biomechanics of oral and maxillofacial implants: current status and future developments.

Research in biomaterials and biomechanics has fueled a large part of the significant revolution associated with osseointegrated implants. Additional key areas that may become even more important--such as guided tissue regeneration, growth factors, and tissue engineering--could not be included in this review because of space limitations. All of this work will no doubt continue unabated; indeed, it is probably even accelerating as more clinical applications are found for implant technology and related therapies. An excellent overall summary of oral biology and dental implants recently appeared in a dedicated issue of Advances in Dental Research. Many advances have been made in the understanding of events at the interface between bone and implants and in developing methods for controlling these events. However, several important questions still remain. What is the relationship between tissue structure, matrix composition, and biomechanical properties of the interface? Do surface modifications alter the interfacial tissue structure and composition and the rate at which it forms? If surface modifications change the initial interface structure and composition, are these changes retained? Do surface modifications enhance biomechanical properties of the interface? As current understanding of the bone-implant interface progresses, so will development of proactive implants that can help promote desired outcomes. However, in the midst of the excitement born out of this activity, it is necessary to remember that the needs of the patient must remain paramount. It is also worth noting another as-yet unsatisfied need. With all of the new developments, continuing education of clinicians in the expert use of all of these research advances is needed. For example, in the area of biomechanical treatment planning, there are still no well-accepted biomaterials/biomechanics "building codes" that can be passed on to clinicians. Also, there are no readily available treatment-planning tools that clinicians can use to explore "what-if" scenarios and other design calculations of the sort done in modern engineering. No doubt such approaches could be developed based on materials already in the literature, but unfortunately much of what is done now by clinicians remains empirical. A worthwhile task for the future is to find ways to more effectively deliver products of research into the hands of clinicians.

Biocompatible Materials↗

[Treatment of posttraumatic defects of the paranasal sinuses].

Fractures and deformations of the upper and middle face skeleton account for 16-28% of all facial bones fractures. Frontal and maxillary sinuses suffer most frequently. To repair bone defects of the paranasal sinuses, 79 patients received prosthetic treatment (compound endoprostheses made of spongy titanium nickelide, titanium grid combined with lyophilized human dura mater which isolates periorbital and muscular tissues and prevents their invasion into the cells or pores of the endoprostheses. This ensures mobility of the prostheses. Reconstruction of posttraumatic defects of frontal and maxillary bone walls with compound endoprostheses improves functional and cosmetic results, reduces the number of complications by 4-5%.

Frontal Sinus↗

[Endo-prosthetics of the temporomandibular joint: results of using different methods based on data of Central Institute of Dentistry clinic].

Results of using different types of endoprostheses for repair of the temporomandibular joint (TMJ) are discussed. The main advantages and drawbacks of the method of endoprosthetic treatment of the mandibular condylar process, detected during the immediate and remote postoperative periods, are described. The biomechanics of mandibular movements in prostheses of the joint is presented. Results of using complete endoprosthesis of the TMJ, designed with consideration for mandibular movements biomechanics and experience gained in the use of various types of the joint endoprostheses are presented.

Adolescent↗

Development of a static and dynamic simulator for osteosyntheses of the mandible.

The development of new methods and materials for osteosynthesis requires in vitro testing prior to clinical use to exclude major problems or difficulties. In the field of oral and maxillofacial surgery no standardized testing procedures have so far been established. From a biomechanical point of view the lower jaw can be described as a lever that during the chewing cycle various forces at various points of the bone act upon. Standardized solid foam polyurethane mandibles (Sawbones, Malmö, Sweden) were used for the testing of various types of screws and different types of fractures. Via linkages that were connected to hydraulic cylinders defined forces were exerted on the polyurethane mandibles and the deformation was registered depending on the force. Monitoring was carried out contactless and therefore without back coupling by the use of a video system that recorded well-defined points on both sides of the fracture line. The photographs were then evaluated by special software (SIMI MOTION CAPTURE). The control of the cylinders was performed through a processor that besides static forces also allowed dynamic testing (e.g. sinusoid oscillation with defined amplitude and number of cycles). For the standardized and realistic three-dimensional static or dynamic testing of new methods and materials for osteosynthesis of the lower jaw this test stand has proved to be optimally suitable. Independent on the type of fracture and the material used the field of application for our test stand is the complete lower jaw. Therefore an ethically correct and economically reasonable testing of industrial products and clinical methods of osteosynthesis can be performed with this simulator.

Absorbable Implants↗

An intraoral-extraoral combination appliance. A maxillofacial prosthetic device.

Reconstructing a cancer patient's head and neck region can be challenging for the restorative team because of the size of the defect and the tumorous condition of the remaining anatomical structures. This article presents a case that uses remaining healthy tissue, along with intraoral and extraoral devices, to deliver a sophisticated prosthetic device designed to restore physical function.

Eye, Artificial↗

[A method of preparing a transplant for eliminating defects and deformities in the supporting facial tissues].

A method for making transplants for repair of abutment tissue defects and deformations based on computer technology is proposed. The technology unites surgical treatment, clinical and x-ray computer-aided diagnosis, computer processing of information and models, experiments, and production. Correspondence of the implant to repaired structures, site of implantation, and individual defect was confirmed experimentally [5], clinically [10], and by control computer-aided tomography. For the first time an implant was made by computer technology, identical to abutment tissue defect, and a method for plastic repair of defects and deformations in the skull by individually prepared implants developed and realized under clinical conditions.

Biocompatible Materials↗

A combination obturator.

A combination of flexible and rigid extensions can be used on a prosthesis to provide stability, retention, decreased weight, and obturation of residual palatal defects. The combination extensions present a design of a maxillofacial prosthesis which takes maximum advantage of the patient's remaining anatomy.

Acrylic Resins↗

[Intraoral support prosthesis of the laryngohyoid complex and of the chin after complete removal of the mandible].

The various methods proposed to date for supporting the glossohyoid-laryngeal complex after removal of the mandibular arch have been examined. A new type of intra-oral maxillofacial prosthesis for supporting the soft lining tissues of the lower 3rd of the face is then described. This has made it possible to avoid final tracheostomy in spite of total mandible removal.

Adult↗

Developments in reconstruction of midface and maxilla.

Loss of the maxilla and midfacial structures after tumour removal has substantial functional and aesthetic consequences. The variable loss of soft tissue, bone, or both, leading to collapse of the lip, cheek, periorbital soft tissues, and palatal competence present a challenging dilemma for reconstructive surgeons. Efforts have been made to classify these midfacial defects and provide appropriate algorithms for optimum reconstruction. Not only does the cavity need to be obliterated and midfacial contours recreated, but swallowing function, phonation, and mastication need to be restored for an ideal result. Traditionally, these defects would have been repaired by a maxillofacial prosthesis but advances in tissue transfers, particularly of microvascular free flaps, have greatly increased reconstructive options. The wide variety of free flaps that contain both soft tissue and bone offer unique properties that could be applicable depending on the defect. Combinations of free tissue transfer, local flaps, and maxillofacial prostheses might achieve a more ideal result than one technique alone. Advances in osseointegration have also enhanced the ability to achieve the best function and form. No one flap or technique is sufficient to reconstruct midface defects in all patients. The choices should be tailored to the bony and soft-tissue needs of each specific defect, denture-bearing potential of the original tissues, and available prosthodontic support. Use of a multidisciplinary approach to reconstruct these defects can yield excellent results. The complexity of the techniques should match the desired goals and needs of each individual patient.

Algorithms↗

Prosthetic functional therapy. A new method for rehabilitation of the orally handicapped patient.

A new approach to the rehabilitation of individuals who are orally handicapped after surgery offers direct support to dysfunctioning oral musculature, as well as physiologic conditioning to redirect tongue posture. Prosthetic functional therapy can be used to improve problems of speech, swallowing, drooling, and mastication in cases where structural loss of neuromuscular impairment have affected the functional competence of oral tissues. Patients who experience this therapy become highly motivated to succeed in rehabilitation as a result of a positive feedback that is provided by improvement in functional competence. Patients express both satisfaction and comfort and tend to progress favorably in the course of therapy.

Adult↗

Comparison of maxillary implant-supported prosthesis in irradiated and non-irradiated patients.

In order to investigate the influence of radiation therapy after the treatment of maxillary implant-supported prostheses, 27 patients received a total of 131 implants in maxilla after oral cancer treatment and/or reconstructive surgery. Among them, 25 received maxillary implant-supported prostheses. The cumulative survival rates of implants and prostheses were evaluated by the product-limit-estimates method according to Kaplan-Meier. The cumulative survival rate of implants and prostheses in irradiated patients was compared with that in non-irradiated patients by statistical Log-rank test. The results showed that 112 implants were observed after implant loading. The implants cumulative survival rate was approximately 65% for overall patients. The cumulative prosthesis successful rate was approximately 88% for all 25 patients. Log-rank test analysis revealed that there was a significant difference in cumulative implants survival rates between non-irradiated and irradiated maxillary bone (P < 0.01). It was concluded that the implants and prostheses in irradiated patients have significantly lower survival rates than in non-irradiated patients.

Aged↗

[Primary soft tissue coverage and specific after-care of endosseous implants in pre-irradiated orbits].

After orbital exenteration and high- dose irradiation (60 Gy on average), 17 endosseous implants were placed periorbitally in 5 patients. No hyperbaric oxygen therapy was performed. All implants were primarily covered with regional or free flaps. After second-stage surgery and aesthetic rehabilitation with an external maxillofacial prosthesis, the pocket depth and implant stability (periotest) were checked, an occipitonasomental radiograph was taken and the soft tissue assessed in short recall intervals. When the implant was uncovered, osseointegration was stable. Within a follow-up period of 35 months, no fixation had failed. In two patients, peri-implant inflammation (microbiologically confirmed Staphylococcus aureus) occurred, which was clinically only determined by soft tissue oedema and rubor. The results demonstrate primary soft tissue covering as essential for non-irritating implant osseointegration in the irradiated orbita. In extraoral implants the clinical estimation of the peri-implant soft tissue, including a microbiological examination, is required for early detection of peri-implant inflammation in order to avoid secondary implant failure. In contrast, periotest and pocket depth are not relevant in recognizing an ensuing peri-implant inflammation.

Adult↗

Special prostheses.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Abnormalities, Drug-Induced↗