Page 93 - Craniomaxillofacial Implant Surgery - Jeroen P.J. Dings

Maxillofacial prosthetic rehabilitation: a survey on the quality of life
respondents reported the limiting aspect of bar-clips on local hygiene. This is in accordance with reports describing limited access for cleaning in the presence of bar- clip systems8,21. Nemli et al14 reported a higher frequency of dermatologic problems for auricular prostheses as compared with nasal and orbital prostheses. No such difference was found in the present study, although auricular prostheses were statistically significantly cleaned less frequently (P=.01) than other maxillofacial prostheses. Seven respondents reported the loss of 1 or more implants, 4 of whom had received radiation therapy. Bone irradiation is the best-known cause of implant failure, and implants in the temporal region tend to have the highest rate of success8,17,18,20.
Results in this study revealed negative influences of prostheses on mood (25.0%),
leisure (19.2%), and social activities (13.5%). The extent to which this negative influence
hampered social life was not specified. Negative influence on educational or working
activities and diminished feelings of sexuality were only mentioned by 2 patients, 79
and 91 years old, indicating that the majority of (younger) patients were unaltered
in their attitudes and habits. Respondents with nasal prostheses, more than others, 5 felt their prostheses were noticeable (P=.01). This was corroborated by Atay et al3, who
showed the nasal region to be one of the most important features determining total facial appearance.
Larger and multicenter studies are needed to draw generalized conclusions on the impact of maxillofacial prosthetic rehabilitation on overall treatment satisfaction and patient quality of life. Future research should also focus on enhancing material durability and color stability to improve the service life of prostheses.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the findings of this survey, the following conclusions were drawn:
1. The overall acceptance of maxillofacial prostheses was good, showing
high satisfaction with anatomic form, color, and wearing comfort.
2. Implant-retained prostheses provided more ease of placement and
removal than traditional adhesive techniques.
91