Long-Term Results of Endosseous Implants as Retention Elements of Orbital Epitheses, Reconstruction Techniques, and Aftercare Following Radical Tumor Resection

Baum, Sven Holger; Klein, Michael; Mohr, Christopher; Weischer, Thomas

doi:10.11607/jomi.6988

Cited by 5 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The lower survival rates in the latter might be because the oncology group consisted of more patients with orbital implants and patients who had to undergo radiotherapy. These findings are in accordance with earlier studies on craniofacial implant placement 8,10,12,19,20 …”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

“…These findings are in accordance with earlier studies on craniofacial implant placement. 8,10,12,19,20 When treating patients with orbital defects, various challenges need to be addressed, for example the poor bone quality in the orbit region and potential issues with cleaning the peri-implant skin due to the local anatomy and the visual handicaps that patients with monocular vision encounter. 21 Although older age (frailty) and a decline in visual capacities during aging can also be mentioned as factors affecting peri implant hygiene, age was not identified from the current study's multivariate regression analysis data as a significant risk factor for implant survival.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…6,7 Poor bone quality and low bone volume are important risk factors for craniofacial implant loss, with the highest reported implant loss occurring from the orbital regions. [8][9][10] In addition, radiotherapy is negatively associated with implant survival as radiation has a high impact on bone quality. 11,12 However, the timing of craniofacial implant placement in oncology patients, e.g., before or after radiotherapy, is still an issue of debate.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…An optimal treatment outcome (from a prosthetic as well as a surgical point of view) crucially requires careful pre‐operative implant placement planning 6,7 . Poor bone quality and low bone volume are important risk factors for craniofacial implant loss, with the highest reported implant loss occurring from the orbital regions 8–10 . In addition, radiotherapy is negatively associated with implant survival as radiation has a high impact on bone quality 11,12 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Outcome of implants placed to retain craniofacial prostheses – A retrospective cohort study with a follow‐up of up to 30 years

Alberga

Eggels

Visser

et al. 2022

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To retrospectively assess the treatment outcomes of endosseous implants placed to retain craniofacial prostheses.Material and Methods: Patients with craniofacial defects resulting from congenital disease, trauma, or oncologic treatment had implant retained prostheses placed in the mastoid, orbital, or nasal region and then assessed over a period of up to 30 years. Implant survival rates were calculated with the Kaplan-Meier method. Clinical assessments consisted of scoring skin reactions under the prosthesis and the periimplant skin reactions. Possible risk factors for implant loss were identified. Patient satisfaction was evaluated using a 10-point VAS-scale.Results: A total of 525 implants placed in 201 patients were included. The median follow up was 71 months (IQR 28-174 months). Implants placed in the mastoid and nasal region showed the highest overall implant survival rates (10-year implant survival rates of 93.7% and 92.5%, respectively), while the orbital implants had the lowest overall survival rate (84.2%). Radiotherapy was a significant risk factor for implant loss (HR 3.14, p < 0.001). No differences in implant loss were found between pre-and post-operative radiotherapy (p = 0.89). Soft tissue problems were not frequently encountered, and the patients were highly satisfied with their implant-retained prosthesis. Conclusion:Implants used to retain craniofacial prostheses have high survival and patient satisfaction rates and can thus be considered as a predictable treatment option. Radiation is the most important risk factor for implant loss.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Outcome of implants placed to retain craniofacial prostheses – A retrospective cohort study with a follow‐up of up to 30 years

Alberga

Eggels

Visser

et al. 2022

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…During the implantation, three to four implants (Entific Medical Systems, Gothenburg, Sweden) were inserted into the lateral orbital rim, according to our previously reported method. 12 A sufficient bony supply as well as a vital bony bed was required for the implantation. The titanium implants used in the study had a length of 3 and 4 mm and a diameter of 3.75 mm.…”

Section: Clinical Coursementioning

confidence: 99%

Reconstruction of Orbital Exenteration Defects with Cross-median Forehead Flaps

Baum,

Al-Bayati,

Mohr

et al. 2024

Facial Plast Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to examine the role of forehead flaps in the reconstruction of orbital defects after exenteration. Patients undergoing orbital exenteration and reconstruction using median forehead flaps from January 2002 to August 2019 were enrolled in this retrospective study. All the patients were evaluated for wound complications, functional results, and tumor relapse. In total, 105 patients completed the study. Twenty-nine complications in 24 of these patients were assessed. The most common complications were wound dehiscence (11%), partial necrosis of the flap (6%), and bleeding (4%). A major complication occurred in two patients (2%), necessitating surgical correction. Only one patient had a local relapse. Sixty patients received osseointegrated implants, and 58 of them were treated with facial prostheses. The follow-up periods ranged from 6 to 189 months. Thus, forehead flap reconstruction after exenteration is a reliable method with a low complication rate. This technique can be used for primary or secondary reconstruction, and excellent long-term functional results can be achieved. A relapse-oriented follow-up is certainly possible.

show abstract

Exenteratio orbitae – Indikation, Rekonstruktion und Rehabilitation

Baum

2020

MKG-Chirurg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Long-Term Results of Endosseous Implants as Retention Elements of Orbital Epitheses, Reconstruction Techniques, and Aftercare Following Radical Tumor Resection

Cited by 5 publications

References 0 publications

Outcome of implants placed to retain craniofacial prostheses – A retrospective cohort study with a follow‐up of up to 30 years

Outcome of implants placed to retain craniofacial prostheses – A retrospective cohort study with a follow‐up of up to 30 years

Reconstruction of Orbital Exenteration Defects with Cross-median Forehead Flaps

Exenteratio orbitae – Indikation, Rekonstruktion und Rehabilitation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About