Page 84 - Craniomaxillofacial Implant Surgery - Jeroen P.J. Dings

82
Chapter 5
the research elicited patient satisfaction as to differences with adhesive-retained prostheses to determine the best treatment option. The null hypothesis was that patient overall satisfaction with maxillofacial prostheses would be similar for all locations of facial defects. In addition, patients with adhesive-retained prostheses would report similar responses to those with implant-retained prostheses with regard to daily prosthetic use, retention, and socialization.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A total of 66 patients with a prosthesis of the ear, nose, or orbit were included. Patients had at least 12 months of experience wearing a facial prosthesis. No patients were excluded based on demographic data, defect etiology, or type of retention, except those deceased, lost to follow-up, or having combined prostheses or local recurrence of the malignant process. None of the authors were involved in fabricating the facial prostheses for the patients. All patients had been surgically and prosthetically treated between 1997 and 2013 at the Departments of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Special Dental Care of the Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center (RUMC), the Netherlands. The study protocol was approved by the medical ethical committee of the faculty. No separate analysis was performed to determine the number of specimens required in each separate test group, since this study aimed to maximize the group of respondents out of a limited number of patients with maxillofacial prostheses.
The cohort of patients was stratified according to the anatomic location of the defect and adhesive-retained versus implant-retained prostheses. The group with implant-retained prostheses was further divided into patients with magnetic or bar- clip retentive systems and those with or without previous experience of adhesive- retained prostheses. Patient data were confirmed with medical and dental charts (age, sex, prosthetic type, smoking, duration of time since cancer surgery, and prosthetic rehabilitation).
A comprehensive questionnaire to assess satisfaction with maxillofacial prosthetic rehabilitation was constructed in consultation with prosthodontists and psychologists and was reviewed by a statistician. The questionnaire contained 62 questions with multiple-choice answers or on a 5-point Likert rating scale. This scale varied from ‘fully disagree’ to ‘fully agree.’. Items evaluated as a score of 1 were considered negative, while