Post-operative hemimaxillectomy rehabilitation using prostheses supported by zygoma implants and remaining natural teeth

Qu, Xing Zhou; Wang, Ming Yi; Ong, Hui Shan; Zhang, Chen Ping

doi:10.6061/clinics/2016(10)04

Cited by 5 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Reasons for exclusion were either studies that were not related to the objectives of the current review, studies with duplicating results, or studies written in languages other than English. Four more studies were excluded after reading their methodology [23][24][25][26]. One of them evaluated the stress in congenitally unilateral palatal cleft scenario [25], one used mainly in vivo approach with no interpretation in the result and discussion sections regarding FEA [23], and four different studies were duplicated in their methodology and results [24,26], so we chose the earlier studies [13,27].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biomechanical Stress in Obturator Prostheses: A Systematic Review of Finite Element Studies

Mousa

Abdullah

Jamayet

et al. 2021

BioMed Research International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim. This systematic review is aimed at investigating the biomechanical stress that develops in the maxillofacial prostheses (MFP) and supporting structures and methods to optimize it. Design and Methods. A literature survey was conducted for full-text English articles which used FEA to examine the stress developed in conventional and implant-assisted MFPs from January 2010 to December 2020. Results. 87 articles were screened to get an update on the desired information. 74 were excluded based on a complete screening, and finally, 13 articles were recruited for complete reviewing. Discussion. The MFP is subjected to stress, which is reflected in the form of compressive and tensile strengths. The stress is mainly concentrated the resection line and around the apices of roots of teeth next to the defect. Diversity of designs and techniques were introduced to optimize the stress distribution, such as modification of the clasp design, using materials with different mechanical properties for dentures base and retainer, use of dental (DI) and/or zygomatic implants (ZI), and free flap reconstruction before prosthetic rehabilitation. Conclusion. Using ZI in the defective side of the dentulous maxillary defect and defective and nondefective side of the edentulous maxillary defect was found more advantageous, in terms of compression and tensile stress and retention, when compared with DI and free flap reconstruction.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biomechanical Stress in Obturator Prostheses: A Systematic Review of Finite Element Studies

Mousa

Abdullah

Jamayet

et al. 2021

BioMed Research International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Whilst this is achievable in the edentulous patient, it is not possible in patients with partial maxillary defects where high‐quality teeth on the non‐defect side are reasonably retained. In these situations, unilateral zygomatic implant placement has been shown to be of benefit with either a single or two implants being placed on the defect side (Figure 4) (Qu, Wang, Ong, & Zhang, 2016).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The use of zygomatic implants in hemi-maxillectomy patients has also been reported to improve biting forces with prosthetic obturators (Qu et al, 2016 with the other two patients receiving two zygomatic implants and magnetic abutments. Results showed that although the use of a zygomatic implant did not significantly improve prosthesis retention (however, patients reported subjective improvement in this), the bite force recorded at the prosthetic first molar was significantly increased after implant insertion.…”

Section: Uses Of Zygomatic Implants and Definitive Prostheses Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The use of zygomatic implants in hemi-maxillectomy patients has also been reported to improve biting forces with prosthetic obturators (Qu et al, 2016). A control group received tooth-supported obturator prostheses with no implant support, and the experimental group received prostheses with additional zygomatic implant support on the defect side.…”

Section: Uses Of Zygomatic Implants and Definitive Prostheses Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Zygomatic implant‐based rehabilitation for patients with maxillary and mid‐facial oncology defects: A review

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Malignant diseases of the head and neck require radical treatment, often resulting in loss of the dentition and supporting structures, facial defects and drastic changes in anatomical form. The implications of this are life-changing, often associated with the loss or hindrance of function, speech, swallowing and appearance, leading to a detrimental effect on the patient's social and psychological wellbeing. Maxillary and mid-facial defects are complex and can be classified by level using classifications such as that by Brown and Shaw (2010) and Okay, Genden, Buchbinder, and Urken (2001) to assist in treatment planning, resection, surgical reconstruction and prosthodontic rehabilitation. In 1998, Professor PI Branemark's team developed the specifically designed zygomatic implant for use in compromised maxillary bone including severe atrophy, congenital defects and tumour resection defects (Brånemark, 1998). In 2001, his team published the first paper (Parel, Brånemark, Ohrnell, & Svensson, 2001) on the survival of these implants placed into the residual zygomatic

show abstract

“…[ 69 ] This has been valuable for the development of novel smart materials that respond to magnetic stimuli or magnetic responsive materials to be applied in regenerative medicine. [ 69,70 ] Magnetic materials possess important properties that have allowed applications in different medical areas including neurology, [ 71 ] ophthalmology, [ 72 ] dentistry, [ 73 ] and cardiology, [ 74 ] among others. In fact, the size of these magnetic nanomaterials has been playing a key role, imparting unique properties to the material.…”

Section: Relevance Of Cell Microenvironmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Physically Active Bioreactors for Tissue Engineering Applications

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tissue engineering (TE) is a dynamic and growing scientific field that merges the knowledge of different areas such as biology, physics, medicine, and engineering. [1] The TE discipline was first coined at a National Science Foundation sponsored meeting in 1987, thus originating a field that employs life sciences and engineering with the purpose of developing biologic or synthetic supports to restore, keep, or enhance tissue functions or damaged organs. [2] The classical TE approach has been mainly focusing on associating cells with a supporting matrix, also called biomaterials or scaffolds, that essentially acts as a passive template for tissue formation in vitro by allowing cells to adhere, migrate, differentiate, and produce tissue. Usually, the cells are seeded onto the scaffolds and, occasionally, growth factors are also added. The combination of cells, growth factors, and scaffold is often referred as the TE triad. [3] Nevertheless, novel approaches in TE that include the application of a biophysical stimuli to the scaffolds through the use of a bioreactor are emerging. [4] Tissue engineering (TE) is a strongly expanding research area. TE approaches require biocompatible scaffolds, cells, and different applied stimuli, which altogether mimic the natural tissue microenvironment. Also, the extracellular matrix serves as a structural base for cells and as a source of growth factors and biophysical cues. The 3D characteristics of the microenvironment is one of the most recognized key factors for obtaining specific cell responses in vivo, being the physical cues increasingly investigated. Supporting those advances is the progress of smart and multifunctional materials design, whose properties improve the cell behavior control through the possibility of providing specific chemical and physical stimuli to the cellular environment. In this sense, a varying set of bioreactors that properly stimulate those materials and cells in vitro, creating an appropriate biomimetic microenvironment, is developed to obtain active bioreactors. This review provides a comprehensive overview on the important microenvironments of different cells and tissues, the smart materials type used for providing such microenvironments and the specific bioreactor technologies that allow subjecting the cells/ tissues to the required biomimetic biochemical and biophysical cues. Further, it is shown that microfluidic bioreactors represent a growing and interesting field that hold great promise for achieving suitable TE strategies.

show abstract

Post-operative hemimaxillectomy rehabilitation using prostheses supported by zygoma implants and remaining natural teeth

Cited by 5 publications

References 16 publications

Biomechanical Stress in Obturator Prostheses: A Systematic Review of Finite Element Studies

Biomechanical Stress in Obturator Prostheses: A Systematic Review of Finite Element Studies

Zygomatic implant‐based rehabilitation for patients with maxillary and mid‐facial oncology defects: A review

Physically Active Bioreactors for Tissue Engineering Applications

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About