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

Main Article Content

Sanjay Prasad

Abstract

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.

Article Details

How to Cite
1.
Prasad S. Maxillofacial Prosthesis: A Review of Treatment Concepts for Better Prosthesis Prognosis. BJOHNS [Internet]. 2017Aug.30 [cited 2024Dec.22];25(2):95-9. Available from: https://bjohns.in/journal3/index.php/bjohns/article/view/122
Section
Invited article
Author Biography

Sanjay Prasad, Dr R Ahmed Dental College and Hospital Kolkata-700014

Associate Professor

Dept of Prosthetic Dentistry

References

Lang BR, Bruce RA. Pre surgical maxillectomy prosthesis. J Prosthet Dent. 1967;17:613-9

Jacob R, Martin J, King G. Modification of surgical obturator in interim prosthesis. J. Prosthet Dent. 1989; 62: 619-21

Omo J, Sede M, Enabulele J. Prosthetic Rehabilitation of Patients with Maxillary Defects in a Nigerian Tertiary Hospital. Annals of Medical and Health Sciences Research 2014; 4(4):630-3. doi:10.4103/2141-9248.139352

Chalian VA, Drane JB, Standish SM. Maxillofacial prosthetics. Multidisciplinary practice. United states. The William & Wilkins Company, 1972 p 133-48

Beumer J, Nishimura R, Roumanas E. Maxillary defects: Alteration at surgery which enhance the prosthetic prognosis In: Zlotolow I, Esposito S, Beumer J (eds). Proceeding of the First international congress and Maxillofacial Prosthetics New York: Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. 1995: 22-26

Buemer III John, Marunick Mark T, Esposito Salvatore J. Maxillofacial rehabilitation.ed3.Quintessence Publishing Co Inc.U.S.2011. p 161-2

Lyons KM, Beumer J, Caputo A. Abutment load transfer by removable partial denture obturator framework in different acquired maxillary defects. J. Prosthet Dent. 2005: 94: 281-8

Roumanas E, Nishimura R, Davis B, Beumer J III. Clinical evaluation of implants retaining maxillary obturator prosthesis. J Prothet Dent. 1997; 77: 184-90

Nilmi A, Ueda M, Kaneda T. Maxillary obturator supported by osseointegrated implants placed in irradiated bone: Report of cases. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1993; 51: 804-9

Garrett N. Outcome of maxillectomies with conventional and implant restorations. Presented at the international congress on Maxillofacial Rehabilitation, Bangkok, Thailand 24-27 Sept 2008

Kan-ichi Seto, Matsuura M, Shimazato K, Goto M, Namura T. Atlas of oral and Maxillofacial Rehabilitation, Quintessence Publication Co. Ltd. 2003 p. 29-30.