Accuracy of implant placement using CAD-CAM tooth-supported surgical guides for an auricular prosthesis in vitro

PURPOSE

To evaluate the accuracy of tooth-supported surgical guides used to place implants in auricular prostheses. The accuracy (trueness and precision) of the implant positions was evaluated, and the difference between the surgical guide with and without retention of the external auditory canal (EAC) was compared.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study simulated implant placement in vitro for the treatment of right auricle malformation. Surgical guides and other casts were fabricated using additive manufacturing technology. The casts were divided into 2 groups according to the surgical guide, with 10 bone blocks in each group (with or without the EAC plug (Guides 1 and 2)). Three implant positions (Implants 1-3) were prepared for each bone block using surgical guides. Implant positions were registered using light-body silicone impressions combined with optical surface scans to measure the coronal, apical, depth, and angular deviations. Four deviations of trueness and precision were reported as the mean ± standard deviation, which was analyzed by Student's t-test.

RESULTS

Each group of 10 bone blocks with 30 implant positions was successfully prepared and digitally reproduced as implants. The accuracies of implant position with surgical guides were acceptable when compared with the preoperatively planned implant positions. Compared with the Guide 2 group, there was a significant difference in the apical, depth, and angular deviations of Guide 1 group in terms of precision (p = 0.001). There was a significant difference in the depth deviation of Implant 1 (p = 0.028) and apical deviation of Implant 2 (p < 0.001) compared two groups in terms of trueness. In terms of precision, there was a significant difference in the coronal (p = 0.002), apical (p = 0.001), and depth (p < 0.001) deviation of Implant 1; apical (p = 0.036) and angular (p < 0.001) deviation of Implant 2 also existed significant difference; the coronal deviation of Implant 3 (p = 0.018) also existed significant difference. Moreover, the group with the EAC plug showed lower deviation in precision and a smaller volume in the 95% confidence ellipsoid.

CONCLUSION

Both types of tooth-supported surgical guides can provide acceptable accuracy. A surgical guide with an EAC plug was considered to be more precise.

Reproducible Major Mold for a Silicone Orbital Prosthesis Prototype

ABSTRACT

The implant-supported magnet-retained silicon orbital prosthesis (SOP) was reported as a reliable method to restore the health-related quality of life of patients who underwent facial resection and reconstruction surgery. Currently, fabrication usually requires a long production time and a high level of expertise. Moreover, due to the complex features of facial defects, accurate prosthesis requires many patient fittings.The prosthesis was designed to repair a complex orbital defect. A reproducible major mold was used to make various silicone prototypes with differences in margin design, silicone shade, and artificial eye's details. The most suitable silicone prototype was chosen for the finalization of the SOP. The patient reported the satisfaction with the function, prosthesis retention, and esthetic restoration.This clinical study showed that the new technique using a reproducible major mold can allow the fabrication of various prototypes, save time during fitting, and help in improving personalized fabrication of the SOP.

Ultraviolet C as a method of disinfecting medical silicone used in facial prostheses: An in vitro study

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Hygiene and disinfection are important factors for preserving facial prostheses and supporting tissue health. However, a method that does not accelerate degradation or color change is necessary.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the effectiveness of irradiation with ultraviolet C light-emitting diode (UV-C LED) light in the disinfection and initial color stability of the silicone (A-588-1; Factor II) used in facial prostheses.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

One hundred and twenty specimens were made, contaminated by multispecies biofilm, and divided into 5 groups (n = 24) with different treatments: control, distilled water, 0.12% chlorhexidine, UV-C LED light, and dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) as the negative control. Cell viability was measured by the methyl tetrazolium salt method. Statistical analysis was performed by generalized linear models. Additional descriptive analysis was performed for color analysis by using 16 silicone specimens made with light and dark intrinsic coloring in 4 groups (controls and treatments n=4) submitted to UV-C LED light. The ΔE of the specimens was obtained by CIEDE200.

RESULTS

The results of cell viability demonstrated a statistically significant difference among the groups (P<.001), with a microbial reduction after UVC-LED exposure compared with the control group. Regarding the color, the groups presented an average ΔE (light 0.205 and dark 0.308) compatible with visually imperceptible changes (light < 0.7 and dark < 1.2).

CONCLUSIONS

Irradiation with UV-C LED light decreased the in vitro microbial cell viability of the medical silicone used in facial prostheses, demonstrating initial color stability.

The challenge of managing oral maxillofacial rehabilitation with quality and cost-benefit

Although orofacial cancer leads to substantial functional, esthetic, and psychosocial deficits for patients, reconstructive plastic surgeries may not be indicated for large facial defects. The high costs of prosthetic oral maxillofacial rehabilitation may hamper such treatment, which commonly involves virtual planning, craniofacial implants, and computer-aided design and computer-aided manufactured prostheses. This report shows the treatment of 2 patients with large facial defects from surgical resection of cancerous tissue who were rehabilitated with implant-supported bar-clip overdentures and facial prostheses fabricated by using low-cost straightforward methods.

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

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 synthetic polymers bringing about significant improvements in fabrication and greater realism and utility. These traditional methods have now been disrupted by the advanced manufacturing revolution, radically changing the materials, methods, and nature of prosthetics. In this report, traditional synthetic polymers and advanced prosthetic materials and manufacturing techniques are discussed, including a focus on prosthetic material degradation. New manufacturing approaches and future technological developments are also discussed in the context of specific tissues requiring aesthetic restoration, such as ear, nose, face, eye, breast, and hand. As advanced manufacturing moves from research into clinical practice, prosthetics can begin new age to significantly improve the quality of life for those suffering tissue loss or disfigurement.

3D planning of ear prosthesis and navigated flapless surgery for craniofacial implants: A pilot study

New 3D digital technologies can be applied to implant-supported ear prostheses to restore anatomical structures damaged by cancer, dysplasia, or trauma. However, several factors influence the accuracy of implant positioning using a cranial template. This pilot study describes an innovative navigated flapless surgery for craniofacial implants, prosthetically guided by 3D planning of the ear prosthesis. Laser surface scanning of the face allowed for mapping of the healthy ear onto the defect site, and projection of the volume and position of the final prosthesis. The projected ear volume was superimposed on the skull bone image obtained by cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT), performed with the navigation system marker plate positioned in the patient's mouth. The craniofacial implants were fitted optimally to the ear prosthesis. After system calibration, real-time navigated implant placement based on the virtual planning was performed with minimally invasive flapless surgery under local anesthesia. After 3 months of healing, digital impressions of the implants were made, and the digital manufacturing workflow was completed to manufacture the ear prosthesis anchored to the craniofacial implants. The proposed digital method facilitated implant positioning during flapless surgery, improving the ear prosthesis manufacturing process and reducing operation time, patient morbidity, and related costs. This protocol avoids the need for a reference tool fixed in the cranial bone, as is usually required for maxillofacial surgery, and confirmed that surgical navigation is useful for guiding the insertion of craniofacial implants during flapless surgery.

Implant prognosis in irradiated versus non-irradiated nasal, orbital and auricular sites

The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate implant survival in irradiated nasal, auricular, orbital sites and to compare them with non-irradiated respective sites. Four electronic databases and seven related journals were searched until December and March 2018, respectively. A total of 7892 articles were identified, 18 of which were included in this review; one non-randomized clinical trial, two prospective cohort, eight retrospective cohort and seven cross-sectional studies. Using the ROBIN-I Cochrane tool for risk assessment, 13 studies were judged at serious, one at moderate and four at critical risk of bias. Thirteen were included in 18 meta-analyses, the results of which showed a significant difference between irradiated and non-irradiated sites, favouring non-irradiated with risk ratio (RR) = 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89-0.97, P=0.001. Comparisons among nasal, auricular and orbital sites revealed no significant differences, whether in irradiated or non-irradiated patients at P<0.05. Hence, it was concluded that, within the limitations of this review, survival of craniofacial implants is negatively affected by radiotherapy, especially in orbital sites. Level of evidence is moderate. Therefore, further prospective cohort studies with calculated sample sizes, restricted or properly managed confounders and no deviations from intended interventions might produce different results.

Advancements in craniofacial prosthesis fabrication: A narrative review of holistic treatment

The treatment of craniofacial anomalies has been challenging as a result of technological shortcomings that could not provide a consistent protocol to perfectly restore patient-specific anatomy. In the past, wax-up and impression-based maneuvers were implemented to achieve this clinical end. However, with the advent of computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) technology, a rapid and cost-effective workflow in prosthetic rehabilitation has taken the place of the outdated procedures. Because the use of implants is so profound in different facets of restorative dentistry, their placement for craniofacial prosthesis retention has also been widely popular and advantageous in a variety of clinical settings. This review aims to effectively describe the well-rounded and interdisciplinary practice of craniofacial prosthesis fabrication and retention by outlining fabrication, osseointegrated implant placement for prosthesis retention, a myriad of clinical examples in the craniofacial complex, and a glimpse of the future of bioengineering principles to restore bioactivity and physiology to the previously defected tissue.

A systematic comparison of bar-clips versus magnets

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Currently, which type of suprastructure is preferred when fabricating implant-retained craniofacial prostheses is unknown.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this systematic review was to identify the best retention system (bar-clips versus magnets) for implant-retained craniofacial prostheses.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This systematic review was conducted and reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. A systematic search of Medline/PubMed and Web of Science databases for clinical trials was conducted on implant-retained craniofacial prostheses published between 2005 and 2015. English-language studies that directly compared different types of retention systems or presented information on implant survival, periimplant soft tissue reactions, and prosthetic complications were included. Nonclinical studies were excluded to eliminate bias.

RESULTS

A total to 173 studies were identified, of which 10 satisfied the inclusion criteria. In total, 492 participants were included in these studies. Four selected studies displayed detailed information with regard to the number of implant failures according to the retention system. As reported, 29 (18.2%) of 159 implants with magnets failed, whereas 25 (31.6%) of 79 implants with bars failed. Overall auricular superstructures showed the highest survival (99.08%). In addition, 55.4% of all participants in the selected studies showed grade 0 of periimplant soft tissue reactions.

CONCLUSIONS

A systematic search for clinical studies resulted in few studies with a short-term follow-up and small number of participants. The limited data collected indicated that magnets show fewer complications than bar superstructures; however, no hard conclusions could be drawn. Further research, preferably in the form of clinical trials, is needed to validate these findings.

Survival and complications of implants to support craniofacial prosthesis: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To assess the survival rate of craniofacial implants (CIs) to support facial prosthesis/epithesis and the prevalence of surgical/biological complications based on previously published studies.

METHODS

An electronic search was undertaken in March/2016. Only studies with a minimum of 5 patients were included. Untransformed proportions of implant failures for different regions were calculated. A meta-analysis evaluated the influence of radiotherapy on the failure rates. A meta-regression was performed considering the follow-up period as covariate.

RESULTS

Seventy publications included 2355 patients and 8184 CIs (545 failures). The probability of a failure was 5.5% for all CIs (95%CI 4.5-6.5, P < 0.001), 1.2% for CIs in the auricular region (95%CI 0.8-1.5, P < 0.001), 12.2% for the nasal region (95%CI 9.0-15.5, P = 0.017), and 12.1% for the orbital region (95%CI 9.3-15.0, P < 0.001). Radiotherapy statistically affected the CIs rates (OR 5.80, 95%CI 3.77-8.92, P < 0.00001). There was no statistically significant influence of the follow-up time on the proportion of implant failures (P = 0.814). Soft tissue adverse reactions were the most common complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Implants placed in the auricular region have a lower probability of failure than those in the nasal and orbital regions. Soft tissue adverse reactions were the most common complications. Radiotherapy significantly affected the CIs failure rates.