Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Medicine and Health Sciences
Extraoral Maxillofacial Prosthesis Implant Retention Systems: A Critical Review., Hugh Byrne, Marina L. Pimentel
Extraoral Maxillofacial Prosthesis Implant Retention Systems: A Critical Review., Hugh Byrne, Marina L. Pimentel
Articles
Objectives: The purpose of this literature review is to provide information on the different available techniques for implant-supported prosthetic retention, which are bar-clip, o-ring or magnets. Through presenting the practitioner preferences reported in literature, although limited from strict comparison due to the heterogeneity of methodologies and studied individuals, this review aims to identify the choices for maxillofacial prosthesis implant retention systems, regarding patient comfort and good aesthetic outcome, as an aid to surgical and prosthetic planning for implant-supported extraoral maxillofacial prosthetics. With proper knowledge of each implant retention system, a practitioner can design a treatment plan which allows for a …
Retention Systems For Extraoral Maxillofacial Prosthetic Implants: A Critical Review, M.V. Cobein, N.P. Coto, O. Crivello Junior, J.B.D. Lemos, L.M. Vieira, M.L. Pimentel, Hugh Byrne, R.B. Dias
Retention Systems For Extraoral Maxillofacial Prosthetic Implants: A Critical Review, M.V. Cobein, N.P. Coto, O. Crivello Junior, J.B.D. Lemos, L.M. Vieira, M.L. Pimentel, Hugh Byrne, R.B. Dias
Articles
We describe the techniques available for retention of implant-supported prostheses: bar-clips, O-rings, and magnets. We present reported preferences and, although this is limited by the heterogeneity of methods used and patients studied, we hope we have identified the best retention systems for maxillofacial prosthetic implants. If practitioners know the advantages and disadvantages of each system, they can choose the most natural and comfortable prosthesis. We searched the PubMed and Scopus databases, and restricted our search to papers published 2001–13. MeSH terms used were Maxillofacial prosthesis and Craniofacial prosthesis OR Craniofacial prostheses. We found a total of 2630 papers, and after …