Page 86 - Craniomaxillofacial Implant Surgery - Jeroen P.J. Dings

Chapter 5
RESULTS
A total of 66 patients with orbital, nasal, or auricular prostheses were mailed a questionnaire. Completed questionnaires were returned by 52 patients (79%). Their medical characteristics are given in Table 1.
Table 1. Distribution of population and prosthetic characteristics
Age in years: mean (range) Sex
Follow-up period in months: mean (range)
Retention type Defect etiology
Number of implant retained prostheses (range)
Years of functioning: mean (range)
Orbital (12 patients)
66.8 (39-82)
5 males / 7 females 102 (21-291)
3 bar-clips 7 magnet 2 adhesive
12 oncology
4.9 (2-16) 2.2 (0.25-6)
Nasal (17 patients)
74,5 (59-93)
10 males / 7 females 45 (17-109)
8 bar-clips 6 magnet 3 adhesive
17 oncology
2.9 (1-10) 1.4 (0.5-2)
Auricular (23 patients)
58.7 (21-88)
14 males / 9 females 77 (24 – 197)
12 bar-clips 2 magnet 9 adhesive
1 trauma
8 congenital 7 oncology 7 unknown
4.3 (1-10) 2,6 (0-10)
84
Internal consistency of the questions against the 5-point Likert rating scale showed a Cronbach a coefficient value of 0.82. None of the respondents mentioned having difficulties in understanding the questions. Fourteen patients (27%) wore adhesive- retained prostheses (9 auricular, 3 nasal, 2 orbital), and 38 patients wore implant- retained prostheses (73%), of whom 14 stated having previously worn adhesive-retained prostheses (7 nasal, 5 orbital, 2 auricular). No statistically significant differences based on age or sex were observed. With respect to ‘wearing comfort,’ no statistical differences in perception of materials with regard to anatomic location (P=.06) and means of retention (P=.11) were identified (Fig. 1).