Zur epithetischen Versorgung tumorbedingter Gesichtsdefekte*

Knöbber, D.; Brusis, T.; Siranli, F.

doi:10.1055/s-2007-998776

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“… anatomical anchorage (to already existing anatomical structures such as undercut areas in the cavities of an orbital defect), mechanical anchorage (for example to spectacle frames), chemical anchorage (using adhesives [ 7 ]) surgical anchorage (e.g. using surgically created retention elements [ 8 ]) …”

Section: Craniofacial Prosthetic Rehabilitationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implant-retained craniofacial prostheses for facial defects

Federspil

2009

GMS Current Topics in Otorhinolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery; 8:Doc03; ISSN 1865-1011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Craniofacial Prosthetic Rehabilitationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implant-retained craniofacial prostheses for facial defects

Federspil

2009

GMS Current Topics in Otorhinolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery; 8:Doc03; ISSN 1865-1011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Nicht alle Nasendefekte nach Tumorresektion eignen sich aus unterschiedlichen Gründen für eine plastisch-rekonstruktive chirurgische Versorgung, so daß die epithetische Rehabilitation in Betracht kommt [8].…”

Section: Diskussionunclassified

Epithetische Versorgung tumorbedingter Nasendefekte

Klein

1999

HNO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reconstructive plastic surgery is not always possible or advisable for nasal defects following tumor resections. Facial prostheses offer an alternative therapy. Since 1991, 37 patients with nasal defects after tumor surgery were treated in the Berlin Center of Facial Prostheses: 28 received "soft" silicone facial prostheses and 9 "solid" polymethylmetacrylate facial prostheses. In 35 patients protheses were bone-anchored: Brånemark implants were used in 12 patients and an Epitec frame construction in 23 patients. Glue-on prostheses were applied to only two patients. No intraoperative complications occurred at implant insertion. During following visits only minor inflammations were observed around implants and were treated locally. The implant success rate was 78% for the Brånemark implants (89.7% in non-radiated areas and 50% in radiated areas) and 100% in radiated and non-radiated areas for the Epitec system. Our investigation shows that given the right indication, the bone-anchored facial prosthesis is safe, cosmetically acceptable, uncomplicated and not stressful for the patient.

show abstract