Maxillofacial prosthetics and digital technologies: Cross‐sectional study of healthcare service provision, patient attitudes, and opinions

Abstract

PurposeDigital technologies are continuously improving the accuracy and quality of maxillofacial prosthetics, but their impact on patients remains unclear. This cross‐sectional study aimed to analyze the impact of facial prosthetics service provision, patients’ perception, and digital technology on prostheses construction.Materials and MethodsAll patients who presented for evaluation and management of facial defects between January 2021 and December 2021 at the ENT clinic were eligible for study enrollment. Patients requiring prosthetic reconstruction of their missing facial parts were included in the study. Forty‐five questionnaires were delivered, inquiring about the patients’ prosthetic demographics, prosthesis manufacture using 3D technologies, and their perceptions and attitudes.ResultsA total of 37 patients responded (29 males, eight females; mean age 20.50 years). The congenital cause was the highest among other causes (p = 0.001) with auricular defects being the highest (p = 0.001). A total of 38 prostheses were constructed and 17 prostheses were retained by 36 craniofacial implants (p = 0.014). The auricular and orbital implants success rates were 97% and 25%, respectively. The implant locations were digitally planned pre‐operatively. Digital 3D technologies of defect capture, data designing, and 3D modeling were used and perceived as helpful and comfortable (p = 0.001). Patients perceived their prosthesis as easy to handle, suited them, and they felt confident with it (p = 0.001). They wore it for more than 12 h daily (p = 0.001). They were not worried that it would be noticed, and found it comfortable and stable during various activities (p = 0.001). Implant‐retained prosthesis patients were more satisfied with it, and found it easy to handle and stable (p = 0.001).ConclusionsCongenital defects are the main cause of facial defects in the study country. The overall acceptance of maxillofacial prostheses was good, showing high patient perception and satisfaction. Ocular and implant‐retained silicone prostheses are better handled, more stable, and the latter is more satisfying than traditional adhesive prostheses. Digital technologies save time and effort invested in manufacturing facial prostheses.

Cohesive Zone Modeling of Pull-Out Test for Dental Fiber–Silicone Polymer

“…Various issues have been reported by different researchers that can affect the functionality and effectiveness of these facial prostheses. These problems encompass issues like silicone degradation, separation of silicone from the acrylic base, limitations in simulating natural facial expressions due to the stiffness of the acrylic base, and a reduction in the seamless integration of the prosthesis, resulting in visible gaps [ 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 ].…”

“…Efforts have been made to develop new polymeric materials that possess improved mechanical properties, including a higher tear strength, lower hardness, and reduced viscosity [ 6 , 7 , 8 ]. It has also been proposed that facial prostheses be fabricated in three layers, comprising a silicone rubber base material, an inner silicone gel layer, and a thin outer polymeric coating.…”