Prosthetic supply of facial defects: long-term experience and retrospective analysis on 99 patients

Papaspyrou, Giorgos; Yildiz, Cansel; Bozzato, Alessandro; Bohr, Christopher; Schneider, Mathias; Hecker, Dietmar; Schick, Bernhard; Kadah, Basel Al

doi:10.1007/s00405-017-4835-x

Cited by 19 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Total removal of the orbital contents was first described as orbital exenteration by Georg Barish in 1583 [ 3 , 4 ] and is now a common surgical procedure that has several categories depending upon the patient’s malignancy status and the degree of partial excision of the eyelids [ 5 ]. Orbital and oculofacial prostheses have been considered the most ideal and viable alternative reconstruction method compared with local flap repositioning or microvascular free-flap coverage [ 6 ]. Retention of orbital prosthesis has been achieved using adhesives, attachment to eyeglasses frames or straps, and, more recently, use of dental implants [ 1 , 2 , 7 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implant-supported orbital prosthesis: a technical innovation of silicone fabrication

Cho

Nguyen

et al. 2020

Int J Implant Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Silicone-based facial prostheses have traditionally been considered difficult to make and require time-consuming fabrication due to their basic liquid characteristics. Methods and results A detailed procedure for creating an ideal silicone orbital prosthesis was developed, including dental implant-supported retention, three-dimensional (3D) orbital scanning with symmetric volume and size measurement based on matching the opposite side, master mold fabrication for convenient pouring of the liquid silicone elastomer, and easy and comfortable management of the prosthesis by the patient. Conclusion A silicone orbital prosthesis could be more easily and conveniently produced using updated surgical skills and modern 3D technology. The combination of 3D scanning with digital reconstruction and an innovative fabrication protocol using a reproducible major mold and multiple prototypes fitting resulted in an accuracy personalized facial prosthesis with accessible cost and short production period.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implant-supported orbital prosthesis: a technical innovation of silicone fabrication

Cho

Nguyen

et al. 2020

Int J Implant Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[305] Furthermore, many traditional methods and materials are supported by long-term retrospective studies demonstrating robustness and biocompatibility giving practitioners confidence in their efficacy. [2,65,306,307] Aside from the fabrication process itself, other vital components of the advanced manufacturing pipeline require substantial development, such as 3D scanning and computer modeling. For example, high-accuracy scanners still remain expensive and challenging to use.…”

Section: Conclusion and Future Outlookmentioning

confidence: 99%

Past, Present, and Future of Soft‐Tissue Prosthetics: Advanced Polymers and Advanced Manufacturing

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

past 30 years, [12,13] it is only the last decade that has seen its rapid development as part of the fourth industrial revolution. [14] This change in practice is evidenced by the significant fraction of recent literature describing advances in 3D printed prostheses, including technological advances [4,15-18] and clinical reports. [19,20] Further innovations involving collaborations between clinicians, academics, and industry, promise even greater capabilities. The future will see 3D printers that can mix materials as desired during fabrication [21] and those that can 3D print organic semiconductors and piezoelectric polymers for sensing and bionics [22-24] (Figure 1). This report is focused on polymers for soft tissue, external, personalized, prosthetics with clinical applications for the ear, [25] nose, [26] eye, [27] face, [28] breast, [29] and hand. [30] The characteristics of both traditional and 3D printable polymeric materials, as well as current advanced manufacturing technologies and those in development, are also reviewed. The earliest evidence of prosthetics dates back to ≈2300 BC, where Egyptian mummies have been discovered with eye, nose, and genital reconstructions fashioned from plaster packed with mud, sand, linen, butter, or soda (Figure 1). [31] Wood, cloth, natural waxes, resins, and metals were later used as the material of choice for rudimentary prostheses. [32] Prostheses remained relatively unchanged for thousands of years until the 16th century, where prosthetic noses and eyes were made from parchment, wax, wood, hard rubber, gold, silver, and copper. [33] Metals continued as a fundamental material throughout the 19th century, largely due to their ability to be shaped and molded as needed. [34,35] One of the first polymers to be used in prosthetics, poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA), was developed in response to the glass shortages in the World Wars of the 20th Century. [36] This polymer went on to become the most common prosthetic material of the time, and still finds use today in artificial eyes [33] and prosthetic substructures. [37] Further innovations in the 20th century produced many new polymers, such as vinyls, copolymers, plastisols, and one of the most significant materials in prosthetics, silicone. [38] Discovered in the early 1900s by Fredrick Kipping, silicone was first used in prosthetics by George W Barnhart in 1960. [39] This versatile polymer remains a primary prosthetic material today due to its soft tissue-like properties, ease of manipulation, chemical inertness, durability, and excellent biocompatibility. [40,41] The search for alternative materials Millions of people worldwide experience disfigurement due to cancers, congenital defects, or trauma, leading to significant psychological, social, and economic disadvantage. Prosthetics aim to reduce their suffering by restoring aesthetics and function using synthetic materials that mimic the characteristics of native tissue. In the 1900s, natural materials used for thousands of years in prosthetics were replaced by syntheti...

show abstract

“…A retrospective study by Karakoca et al (2010) evaluated 25 orbital and 13 nasal prostheses and found an estimated mean survival time of 14.5 months for the first of the patient's prosthesis, with common complications involving clip activation, bar screw and abutment loosening and detaching of the silicone from the acrylic substructure (Karakoca et al, 2010). A larger retrospective study involving 99 patients with custom facial prostheses was carried out by Papaspyrou et al in 2018(Papaspyrou et al, 2018. This included 53 patients with ear prostheses, 27 with eye prostheses and 19 with nasal prostheses with 82.8% or the prostheses designed to be magnetically attached via osseointegrated implants.…”

Section: Patient Wellbeingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Advancements in Soft-Tissue Prosthetics Part A: The Art of Imitating Life

Cruz

Ross

Powell

et al. 2020

Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Physical disfigurement due to congenital defects, trauma, or cancer causes considerable distress and physical impairment for millions of people worldwide; impacting their economic, psychological and social wellbeing. Since 3000 B.C., prosthetic devices have been used to address these issues by restoring both aesthetics and utility to those with disfigurement. Internationally, academic and industry researchers are constantly developing new materials and manufacturing techniques to provide higher quality and lower cost prostheses to those people who need them. New advanced technologies including 3D imaging, modeling, and printing are revolutionizing the way prostheses are now made. These new approaches are disrupting the traditional and manual art form of prosthetic production which are laborious and costly and are being replaced by more precise and quantitative processes which enable the rapid, low cost production of patient-specific prostheses. In this two part review, we provide a comprehensive report of past, present and emerging soft-tissue prosthetic materials and manufacturing techniques. In this review, part A, we examine, historically, the ideal properts of a polymeric material when applied in soft-tissue prosthetics. We also detail new research approaches to target specific tissues which commonly require aesthetic restoration (e.g. ear, nose and eyes) and discuss both traditional and advanced fabrication methods, from hand-crafted impression based approaches to advanced manufactured prosthetics. We discuss the chemistry and related details of most significant synthetic polymers used in soft-tissue prosthetics in Part B. As advanced manufacturing transitions from research into practice, the five millennia history of prosthetics enters a new age of economic, personalized, advanced soft tissue prosthetics and with this comes significantly improved quality of life for the people affected by tissue loss.

show abstract

Prosthetic supply of facial defects: long-term experience and retrospective analysis on 99 patients

Abstract: The osseointegrated titanium implants with magnet support provide a reliable attachment for prosthesis and constitute a promising alternative to surgical reconstruction of complex facial defects.

Cited by 19 publications

References 16 publications

Implant-supported orbital prosthesis: a technical innovation of silicone fabrication

Implant-supported orbital prosthesis: a technical innovation of silicone fabrication

Past, Present, and Future of Soft‐Tissue Prosthetics: Advanced Polymers and Advanced Manufacturing

Advancements in Soft-Tissue Prosthetics Part A: The Art of Imitating Life

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About