Rehabilitation of Unilateral Congenital Microtia by Implant-retained Prosthesis

Applications of CAD/CAM Technology for Craniofacial Implants Placement and Manufacturing of Auricular Prostheses-Systematic Review

This systematic review was aimed at gathering the clinical and technical applications of CAD/CAM technology for craniofacial implant placement and processing of auricular prostheses based on clinical cases. According to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, an electronic data search was performed. Human clinical studies utilizing digital planning, designing, and printing systems for craniofacial implant placement and processing of auricular prostheses for prosthetic rehabilitation of auricular defects were included. Following a data search, a total of 36 clinical human studies were included, which were digitally planned and executed through various virtual software to rehabilitate auricular defects. Preoperative data were collected mainly through computed tomography scans (CT scans) (55 cases); meanwhile, the most common laser scanners were the 3dMDface System (3dMD LLC, Atlanta, Georgia, USA) (6 cases) and the 3 Shape scanner (3 Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark) (6 cases). The most common digital design software are Mimics Software (Mimics Innovation Suite, Materialize, Leuven, Belgium) (18 cases), Freeform software (Freeform, NC, USA) (13 cases), and 3 Shape software (3 Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark) (12 cases). Surgical templates were designed and utilized in 35 cases to place 88 craniofacial implants in auricular defect areas. The most common craniofacial implants were Vistafix craniofacial implants (Entific Medical Systems, Goteborg, Sweden) in 22 cases. A surgical navigation system was used to place 20 craniofacial implants in the mastoid bone. Digital applications of CAD/CAM technology include, but are not limited to, study models, mirrored replicas of intact ears, molds, retentive attachments, customized implants, substructures, and silicone prostheses. The included studies demonstrated a predictable clinical outcome, reduced the patient's visits, and completed the prosthetic rehabilitation in reasonable time and at reasonable cost. However, equipment costs and trained technical staff were highlighted as possible limitations to the use of CAD/CAM systems.

Systematic Review of Clinical Applications of CAD/CAM Technology for Craniofacial Implants Placement and Manufacturing of Nasal Prostheses

The aim of this systematic review was to gather the clinical and laboratory applications of CAD/CAM technology for preoperative planning, designing of an attachment system, and manufacturing of nasal prostheses. According to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, an electronic search was carried out. Only human clinical studies involving digital planning for the rehabilitation of facial defects were included. A total of 21 studies were included with 23 patients, which were virtually planned through different planning software. The most common preoperative data for digital planning were CT scans in nine cases, CBCT in six cases, and laser scans in six cases. The reported planning softwares were Mimics in six cases, Geomagic Studio software in six cases, ZBrush in four cases, and Freeform plus software in four cases. Ten surgical templates were designed and printed to place 36 implants after digital planning, while post-operative assessment was done in two cases to check the accuracy of planned implants. Digital 3D planning software was reported for presurgical planning and craniofacial implants placement, fabrication of molds, designing of implants, designing of retentive attachments, and printing of silicone prostheses. Digital technology has been claimed to reduce the clinical and laboratory time; however, the equipment cost is still one of the limitations.

Bar-clip versus magnet-retained auricular prostheses: A prospective clinical study with a 3-year follow-up

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Implant-retained auricular prostheses, on a bar-clip or with a magnetic retention system, are considered successful treatment for missing ears. However, which of these 2 retention systems is preferred by patients is unknown.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this clinical study was to assess which retention system is mostly preferred by patients wearing implant-retained auricular prostheses: bar-clip retention or magnetic retention.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

All consecutive patients visiting the clinic between March 2014 and November 2014 for a routine follow-up of their implant-retained auricular prostheses on a bar-clip retention system were asked to enroll in this descriptive study comparing patient preference for the retention system: bar-clip versus magnets. Participants were asked to complete a questionnaire to obtain patient satisfaction scores regarding their auricular prosthesis before and 3 months after changing to a magnetic-retained auricular prosthesis. After 3 months, participants were asked to state their preference for either their previous bar-clip system or the new magnetic system. If they did not prefer the magnetic system, participants were able to return to their previous bar-clip system. The study follow-ups were performed at 6, 12, 24, and 36 months. Again, patient satisfaction was scored with the aid of the same questionnaire, and prosthetic care and aftercare were also assessed.

RESULTS

Of 20 eligible patients, 17 participants (12 men, 5 women) enrolled in the study. The mean score for patient satisfaction for the bar-clip system at the start of the study was high (8 ±1.62). After 3 months, 2 participants wanted to return to their previous bar-clip system, followed by 1 more at the 6-month evaluation and 2 more at the 1-year evaluation. After 3 years, 9 of 16 participants (57%) preferred the magnetic-retained auricular prosthesis. During the 3 years of follow-up, aftercare was considered minor for both the bar-clip and the magnetic system. No participants developed peri-implantitis. All participants indicated that cleaning and placing the magnetic-retained auricular prosthesis was easier than the bar-clip system.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of the participants (59%) in this study, especially the elderly participants, preferred the magnetic retention system. When compared with the bar-clip system, no additional aftercare was needed.