Journal of Dental School

Vol. 38 No. 3 (2020)

A Modified Radiographic Technique to Confirm the Attachment Seating in Auricular Prostheses A modified radiographical technique for auricular prostheses

Journal of Dental School, Vol. 38 No. 3 (2020), 12 Mehr 2021 , Page 126-129
https://doi.org/10.22037/jds.v38i3.34022

Abstract

Objectives Implant-retained maxillofacial prostheses have proven to be more successful than conventional adhesive-retained prostheses. Implants enhance prosthesis stability and retention through retentive attachments. However, a faulty abutment-implant interface in terms of complete seating and passive fit could be responsible for mechanical and/or biological complications. This case report describes a simple imaging method to check this adaptation.

Case: In our case, two shoulder type maxillofacial implants with 4 mm length and diameter were placed with 15 mm distance using a surgical guide. After completion of the healing course and making an impression, a metal bar attachment was made and tried on. In addition to using conventional methods to check the complete and correct seating of the suprastructure (bar attachment), a modified posterior-anterior radiograph with a 15-degree downward head tilt was taken. After confirming the seating of the attachment, the auricular prosthesis was made accordingly.

Conclusion Use of radiography to ensure the seating of intraoral implant-supported frameworks is common and accurate. However, there is no radiographic imaging method to check the fit of extraoral implant-supported substructures. This case report described a simple and effective radiographic technique for auricular implant supported by a substructure which is especially important in case of presence of thick skin around the implants, which compromises the accuracy of direct exploring.

Keywords:
  • Maxillofacial Prosthesis
  • Bone-Implant Interface
  • Radiography

How to Cite

Ghoveizi , R. ., Tavakolizadeh, S. ., & Beyabanaki, E. (2021). A Modified Radiographic Technique to Confirm the Attachment Seating in Auricular Prostheses: A modified radiographical technique for auricular prostheses. Journal of Dental School, 38(3), 126–129. https://doi.org/10.22037/jds.v38i3.34022

References

1. Curi MM, Oliveira MF, Molina G, Cardoso CL, Oliveira Lde G, Branemark PI,et al. Extraoral implants in the rehabilitation of craniofacial defects: implant and prosthesis survival rates and peri-implant soft tissue evaluation. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012;70:1551-7
2. Hooper SM, Westcott T, Evans PL, Bocca AP, Jagger DC. Implant-supported facial prostheses provided by a maxillofacial unit in a U.K. regional hospital: longevity and pa-tient opinions. J Prosthodont 2005;14:32-8
3. Ismail JY, Zaki HS.Osseointegration in maxillofacial prosthetics.Dent Clin North Am. 1990;34:327-41
4. Del Valle V, Faulkner G, Wolfaardt J, Rangert B, Tan HK. Mechanical evaluation of craniofacial osseointegration retention systems.Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1995;10:491-8
5. Karakoca S, Aydin C, Yilmaz H, Bal BT. Retrospective study of treatment outcomes with implant-retained extraoral prostheses: survival rates and prosthetic complications. J Prosthet Dent. 2010;103:118-26
6. Beumer J, Curtis T, Marunick M. Maxillofacial rehabilitation: prosthodontic and surgical considerations. St Louis: IshiyakuEuroAmerica, Inc.; 1996:240-285
7. Karayazgan B, Gunay Y, Atay A, NoyunF.Facial defects restored with extraoral implant-supported prostheses. J Craniofac Surg. 2007;18:1086-90
8.Gettleman L, Ryge G. Accuracy of stone, metal and plastic die materials. J Calif Dent Assoc. 1970;46:28–31
9.Michalakis KX, Hirayama H,Garefis PD. Cement-retainedversus screw-retained implant restorations: a critical review. IntJOralMaxillofac Implants 2003;18:719–728
10.Assif D, Marshak B, Schmidt A. Accuracy of implantimpression techniques. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1996;11:216–22
11. Assif D, Marshak B, Nissan J. A modified impressiontechnique for implant-supported restoration. J Prosthet Dent 1994;71:589–91
12. Jemt T. Failures and complications in 391 consecutivelyinserted fixed prostheses supported by Branemark implants inedentulous jaws: a study of treatment from the time of prosthesisplacement to the first annual checkup. Int J Oral MaxillofacImplants 1991;6:270–6
13. Jemt T, Book K. Prosthesis misfit and marginal bone lossin edentulous implant patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1996;11:620–5
14.Yanase RT, Binon PP, Jemt T, Gulbransen HJ, Parel S. Current issue form. How do you test a cast framework for a full arch fixed implant supported prosthesis? Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1994;9:471–4
15. May KB, Edge MJ, Lang BR, Wang RF.ThePeriotest method: implant-supportedframework precision of fit evaluation.JProsthodont 1996;5:206–13
16. Papavassiliou H, Kourtis S, Katerelou J, Chronopoulos V. Radiographical evaluation of the gap at the implant-abutment interface.J EsthetRestor Dent. 2010;22:235-50
17. Kethireddy S, Kethireddy K.Refabrication of an implant-retained auricular prosthesis using clip attachment pickup technique.J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2017;17:310-315
18.Federspil P, Kurt P, Koch A. Bone-anchored epitheses and audioprostheses: 4 years' experience with the Branemark system in Germany].Rev LaryngolOtolRhinol (Bord). 1992; 113:431-7
19. Schwipper V, Tilkorn H, Sander U. Mißerfolgsraten und Fehlindikationen in der Implantat-gestütztenkraniofazialenEpiethetik - KlinischeDaten von 124 Patienten und Literaturübersicht. In: Schwipper V, Tilkorn H, Sander U, editors. Fortschritte in der kraniofazialenchirurgischenEpithetik und Prothetik.Reinbek: Einhorn-Presse-Verlag; 1997. p. 110–152
20.De Oliveria, MF. Auricular prosthesis. In: Osseointegration in craniofacial reconstruction. Chicago (IL): Quintessence; 1980. p. 213-216
  • Abstract Viewed: 158 times
  • PDF Downloaded: 48 times

Download Statastics

Developed By

Open Journal Systems

Information

Make a Submission

Make a Submission