AIM: To show the efficacy of reconstruction and rehabilitation of large acquired maxillofacial defects due to tumor resections and firearm injuries. METHODS: The study group comprised of 16 patients(10 men and 6 women...AIM: To show the efficacy of reconstruction and rehabilitation of large acquired maxillofacial defects due to tumor resections and firearm injuries. METHODS: The study group comprised of 16 patients(10 men and 6 women) who were operated on because of their maxillofacial defects under local and general anesthesia between June 2007 and June 2011. Prosthetic treatment with the aid of dental implants was performed for all of the patients. Eight patients received an implant supported fixed prosthesis; six patients received implant supported overdentures and two patients received both. Patients were followed up postoperatively for 1 to 4 years. Implant success and survival rates were recorded. Panoramic radiographs were taken preoperatively, immediately after surgery, immediately after loading and at every recall session. Peri-implant and prosthetic complications were recorded. Subjects were asked to grade their oral health satisfaction after treatment according to 100 mm visual analog scale(VAS) and the oral health related quality oflife of the patients was measured with the short-form Oral Health Impact Profile. RESULTS: Five implants(3 in the mandible, 2 in the maxilla) in five patients were lost, while the other 53 survived, which brings an overall survival rate of 91.37% on the implant basis, but 68.75% on patient basis. All the failed implants were lost before abutment connection and were therefore regarded as early failures. For all failed implants, new implants were placed after a 2 mo period and the planning was maintained. The mean marginal bone loss(MBL) was 1.4 mm on the mesial side and 1.6 mm on the distal side of the implants. Five of the implants showed MBL > 2 mm(mean MBL = 2.3 mm) but less than 1/2 of the implant bodies and therefore were regarded as not successful but surviving implants. The VAS General Comfort mean score was 85.07, the VAS Speech mean score was 75.25 and the VAS Esthetics mean score was 82.74. No patient reported low scores(score lower than 50) of satisfaction in any of the evaluated factors. The mean of OHIP-14 scores was 5.5. CONCLUSION: Although further follow up and larger case numbers will give more information about the success of dental implants as a treatment modality in maxillofacial defects patients, the actual results are encouraging and can be recommended for similar cases.展开更多
文摘AIM: To show the efficacy of reconstruction and rehabilitation of large acquired maxillofacial defects due to tumor resections and firearm injuries. METHODS: The study group comprised of 16 patients(10 men and 6 women) who were operated on because of their maxillofacial defects under local and general anesthesia between June 2007 and June 2011. Prosthetic treatment with the aid of dental implants was performed for all of the patients. Eight patients received an implant supported fixed prosthesis; six patients received implant supported overdentures and two patients received both. Patients were followed up postoperatively for 1 to 4 years. Implant success and survival rates were recorded. Panoramic radiographs were taken preoperatively, immediately after surgery, immediately after loading and at every recall session. Peri-implant and prosthetic complications were recorded. Subjects were asked to grade their oral health satisfaction after treatment according to 100 mm visual analog scale(VAS) and the oral health related quality oflife of the patients was measured with the short-form Oral Health Impact Profile. RESULTS: Five implants(3 in the mandible, 2 in the maxilla) in five patients were lost, while the other 53 survived, which brings an overall survival rate of 91.37% on the implant basis, but 68.75% on patient basis. All the failed implants were lost before abutment connection and were therefore regarded as early failures. For all failed implants, new implants were placed after a 2 mo period and the planning was maintained. The mean marginal bone loss(MBL) was 1.4 mm on the mesial side and 1.6 mm on the distal side of the implants. Five of the implants showed MBL > 2 mm(mean MBL = 2.3 mm) but less than 1/2 of the implant bodies and therefore were regarded as not successful but surviving implants. The VAS General Comfort mean score was 85.07, the VAS Speech mean score was 75.25 and the VAS Esthetics mean score was 82.74. No patient reported low scores(score lower than 50) of satisfaction in any of the evaluated factors. The mean of OHIP-14 scores was 5.5. CONCLUSION: Although further follow up and larger case numbers will give more information about the success of dental implants as a treatment modality in maxillofacial defects patients, the actual results are encouraging and can be recommended for similar cases.
