Retention systems for extraoral maxillofacial prosthetic implants: a critical review

We describe the techniques available for retention of implant-supported prostheses: bar-clips, O-rings, and magnets. We present reported preferences and, although this is limited by the heterogeneity of methods used and patients studied, we hope we have identified the best retention systems for maxillofacial prosthetic implants. If practitioners know the advantages and disadvantages of each system, they can choose the most natural and comfortable prosthesis. We searched the PubMed and Scopus databases, and restricted our search to papers published 2001–13. MeSH terms used were Maxillofacial prosthesis and Craniofacial prosthesis OR Craniofacial prostheses. We found a total of 2630 papers, and after duplicates had been removed we analysed the rest and found 25 papers for review. Of these, 12 were excluded because they were case reports or non-systematic reviews. Of the remaining 13, 10 described group analyses and seemed appropriate to find practitioner’s choices, as cited in the abstract (n=1611 prostheses). Three papers did not mention the type of prosthetic connection used, so were excluded. The most popular choices for different conditions were analysed, though the sites and retention systems were not specified in all 10 papers. The bar-clip system was the most used in auricular (6/10 papers) and nasal prostheses (4/10). For the orbital region, 6/10 favoured magnets. Non-osseointegrated mechanical or adhesive retention techniques are the least expensive and have no contraindications. When osseointegrated implants are possible, each facial region has a favoured system. The choice of system is influenced by two factors: standard practice and the abilities of the maxillofacial surgeon and maxillofacial prosthetist

Evolution of retention, fixation and anchorage extraoral in maxillofacial rehabilitation systems: a systematic review

Introdução: A utilização de próteses bucomaxilofaciais é de extrema importância para a reintegração no convívio social dos pacientes acometidos de deformidades congênitas ou adquiridas. Tendo em vista os avanços dos sistemas de retenção, fixação e ancoragem extraoral na reabilitação bucomaxilofacial realizou-se revisão sistemática. Objetivos: verificar a evolução das retenções das próteses bucomaxilofaciais comparando os sistemas osseointegrados, aos sistemas não osseointegrados, analisando algumas variáveis como: taxa de sobrevivência dos implantes ao longo do tempo, idade média dos pacientes, etiologia do defeito facial e sitio dos sistemas de retenção relacionado ao tipo de prótese, em formato de revisão sistemática. Métodos: Realizou-se busca bibliográfica nas bases de dados PubMed e SCOPUS, após elaboração de estratégias de busca, obteve-se 2630 artigos onde foram analisados títulos, resumos e eliminadas duplicidades. Resultados: Obteve-se 25 artigos pré-selecionados que passaram pelos critérios de inclusão e exclusão sendo eleitos 13 artigos para a revisão sistemática. Conclusão: As próteses retidas por implantes superam os sistemas convencionais. A perda dos implantes foi muito pequena nos estudos analisados, apesar do tempo de acompanhamento ser relativamente curto e dos protocolos distintos de tratamento. A idade adulta entre a quarta e quinta década de vida foi a de maior prevalência. A etiologia mais incidente são as neoplasias. Os sistemas osseointegrados fixados por implantes por retenção barra clipe se localizam mais na região auricular e retenção magnética nas regiões nasal e orbital. Os sistemas não osseointegrados, a retenção anatômica é mais utilizada na região ocular, retenção mecânica na região orbital e o uso da retenção por adesivos nas regiões nasal e orbital.Introduction: The use of maxillofacial prostheses is the most importance for reintegration into social life of patients suffering from congenital or acquired deformities. Given the advances in retention, fixation and extraoral anchorage systems in maxillofacial rehabilitation got systematic review. Objectives: To observe the evolution of the retentions of maxillofacial prostheses comparing osseointegrated systems, non osseointegrated systems, analyzing some variables such as survival rate of implants over time, mean patient age, etiology of facial defect and place restraint systems related kind of prosthesis, in a systematic review format. Methods: We performed a literature search in PubMed and SCOPUS database, after preparation of search strategies, we obtained 2630 articles where were checking titles, abstracts and eliminated duplicates were analyzed. Results: We obtained 25 pre-selected articles that passed the criteria for inclusion and exclusion being elected 13 articles for systematic review. Conclusion: The dentures retained by implants outperform conventional systems. The loss of the implants was very small in the analyzed studies, although the follow-up time is relatively short and the different treatment protocols. Between the fourth and fifth ages of life was the most prevalent. The most frequent etiology are neoplasms. Osseointegrated systems for fixed for implants retention bar clip are located more auricular and magnetic retention in the regions nasal and orbital. Non osseointegrated systems, anatomical retention is most commonly used in the ocular region, mechanical retention in orbital region and the use of adhesives for retention in the regions nasal and orbital

Retention systems used in maxillofacial prostheses: A review

WOS: 000505722100001PubMed: 31793467Defects in the face area caused by trauma, accident, tumor or congenital defects are treated with special facial prostheses. Besides esthetics, the most common problem with these prostheses is the retention of prostheses. In the present article review, the methods used for the retention of prostheses from past to present were researched, and the advantages of adhesives and implants, which are the most commonly used current methods, were evaluated. Current techniques, new materials, treatment options, and implementation procedures are described. The success of maxillofacial prostheses in meeting the expectations of patients and dentist doctors is increasing day by day with the development of adhesive material science, the emergence of technical knowledge, and the development of implant technology. Increasing the retention provides both ease of use and acceptance by the patient. Therefore, the chosen method for retention has great importance in the long-term prognosis of the prosthesis