Current State of Craniofacial Prosthetic Rehabilitation

Ariani, Nina; Visser, Anita; Oort, Rob P. van; Kusdhany, Lindawati S.; Rahardjo, Tri Budi W.; Krom, Bastiaan P.; Mei, Henny C. van der; Vissink, Arjan

doi:10.11607/ijp.3220

Cited by 107 publications

(109 citation statements)

References 112 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Prosthetic rehabilitation may be used in cases where successful surgical reconstruction is not a viable option due to factors such as poor prognosis, co-morbidities, compromised healing due to poor vascularization 79 , and patient refusal of further surgical interventions 2 . Further, the economic burden and treatment time for prosthetic rehabilitation is lower than that of surgical reconstruction 72 .…”

Section: 3d-printing For Prosthetic Rehabilitationmentioning

confidence: 99%

3D-Printing Technologies for Craniofacial Rehabilitation, Reconstruction, and Regeneration

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The treatment of craniofacial defects can present many challenges due to the variety of tissue-specific requirements and the complexity of anatomical structures in that region. 3D-printing technologies provide clinicians, engineers and scientists with the ability to create patient-specific solutions for craniofacial defects. Currently, there are 3 key strategies that utilize these technologies to restore both appearance and function to patients: rehabilitation, reconstruction and regeneration. In rehabilitation, 3D-printing can be used to create prostheses to replace or cover damaged tissues. Reconstruction, through plastic surgery, can also leverage 3D-printing technologies to create custom cutting guides, fixation devices, practice models and implanted medical devices to improve patient outcomes. Regeneration of tissue attempts to replace defects with biological materials. 3D-printing can be used to create either scaffolds or living, cellular constructs to signal tissue-forming cells to regenerate defect regions. By integrating these three approaches, 3D-printing technologies afford the opportunity to develop personalized treatment plans and design-driven manufacturing solutions to improve aesthetic and functional outcomes for patients with craniofacial defects.

show abstract

Section: 3d-printing For Prosthetic Rehabilitationmentioning

confidence: 99%

3D-Printing Technologies for Craniofacial Rehabilitation, Reconstruction, and Regeneration

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Following prosthesis delivery and usage, most commonly observed problems are margin tear, loss of retentive elements, and discoloration. 32,37 The discoloration of silicone can be associated with daily wear, pollution, effect of cleansing agents, and long exposures to UV radiation that can also accelerate the degeneration. 38 For implant-retained facial prosthesis, inflammation around the implant-abutment interface is one of the most commonly seen complications.…”

Section: Maintenance and Aftercarementioning

confidence: 99%

Orbital prosthesis fabrication: current challenges and future aspects

Shrestha¹,

Thaworanunta²

2016

OAS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Orbital defect, arising from tumor-related resections, trauma, and congenital anomalies, can lead to negative functional and psychological effects in the patients. Rehabilitation with an orbital prosthesis can provide satisfactory aesthetic outlook and can be combined with surgical reconstruction to improve the retention. Despite less than ideal properties, silicone elastomer is the most commonly used material to fabricate orbital prosthesis. Several studies have been conducted on developing newer materials and improving the properties of silicone elastomer. Craniofacial implants offer greater retention compared to adhesives, but they have been observed to have a higher risk of implant failure and related side effects when placed in irradiated bone. This review gives a scope on understanding the current challenges faced during fabrication of orbital prosthesis and the future directions of this field.

show abstract

“…These patients usually suffer from functional as well as psychological problems, which affect their social life because of esthetic concerns [4][5][6]. Therefore, reconstruction of these defects has a great importance to ensure a better quality of life.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Prior to the introduction of craniofacial implants, auricular epitheses were retained by using mechanical tools (spectacle frames, headbands, and steel springs), skin adhesives, or mechanical support of anatomical undercuts (when available) [1,4,13,[16][17][18]. However, skin adhesives may lead to adverse tissue reactions, discoloration and deformation at edges of the epithesis, loss of adhesion because of perspiration, and difficulties in maintaining the position of the epithesis [5,12,[16][17][18].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%