Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery : official journal of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons · 2012
Extraoral implants in the rehabilitation of craniofacial defects: implant and prosthesis survival rates and peri-implant soft tissue evaluation.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Curi Marcos Martins, Oliveira Marcelo Ferraz, Molina Giuliano, Cardoso Camila Lopes, Oliveira Loretta De Groot, Branemark Per-Ingvar, Ribeiro Karina de Cássia Braga
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Few reports have evaluated cumulative survival rates of extraoral rehabilitation and peri-implant soft tissue reaction at long-term follow-up. The objective of this study was to evaluate implant and prosthesis survival rates and the soft tissue reactions around the extraoral implants used to support craniofacial prostheses.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective study was performed of patients who received implants for craniofacial rehabilitation from 2003 to 2010. Two outcome variables were considered: implant and prosthetic success. The following predictor variables were recorded: gender, age, implant placement location, number and size of implants, irradiation status in the treated field, date of prosthesis delivery, soft tissue response, and date of last follow-up. A statistical model was used to estimate survival rates and associated confidence intervals. We randomly selected 1 implant per patient for analysis. Data were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test to compare survival curves.
RESULTS: A total of 150 titanium implants were placed in 56 patients. The 2-year overall implant survival rates were 94.1% for auricular implants, 90.9% for nasal implants, 100% for orbital implants, and 100% for complex midfacial implants (P = .585). The implant survival rates were 100% for implants placed in irradiated patients and 94.4% for those placed in nonirradiated patients (P = .324). The 2-year overall prosthesis survival rates were 100% for auricular implants, 90.0% for nasal implants, 92.3% for orbital implants, and 100% for complex midfacial implants (P = .363). The evaluation of the peri-implant soft tissue response showed that 15 patients (26.7%) had a grade 0 soft tissue reaction, 30 (53.5%) had grade 1, 6 (10.7%) had grade 2, and 5 (8.9%) had grade 3.
CONCLUSIONS: From this study, it was concluded that craniofacial rehabilitation with extraoral implants is a safe, reliable, and predictable method to restore the patient's normal appearance.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective study was performed of patients who received implants for craniofacial rehabilitation from 2003 to 2010. Two outcome variables were considered: implant and prosthetic success. The following predictor variables were recorded: gender, age, implant placement location, number and size of implants, irradiation status in the treated field, date of prosthesis delivery, soft tissue response, and date of last follow-up. A statistical model was used to estimate survival rates and associated confidence intervals. We randomly selected 1 implant per patient for analysis. Data were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test to compare survival curves.
RESULTS: A total of 150 titanium implants were placed in 56 patients. The 2-year overall implant survival rates were 94.1% for auricular implants, 90.9% for nasal implants, 100% for orbital implants, and 100% for complex midfacial implants (P = .585). The implant survival rates were 100% for implants placed in irradiated patients and 94.4% for those placed in nonirradiated patients (P = .324). The 2-year overall prosthesis survival rates were 100% for auricular implants, 90.0% for nasal implants, 92.3% for orbital implants, and 100% for complex midfacial implants (P = .363). The evaluation of the peri-implant soft tissue response showed that 15 patients (26.7%) had a grade 0 soft tissue reaction, 30 (53.5%) had grade 1, 6 (10.7%) had grade 2, and 5 (8.9%) had grade 3.
CONCLUSIONS: From this study, it was concluded that craniofacial rehabilitation with extraoral implants is a safe, reliable, and predictable method to restore the patient's normal appearance.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overChildCranial IrradiationEar, ExternalFacial BonesFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMastoidMiddle AgedNasal CavityNoseOrbital ImplantsOsteotomyProstheses and ImplantsProsthesis DesignProsthesis ImplantationProsthesis RetentionRetrospective StudiesSkinSkullSurvival AnalysisTemporal BoneTreatment OutcomeYoung Adult