Akademik Veri Yönetim Sistemi
JOURNAL OF ORAL IMPLANTOLOGY, cilt.42, sa.1, ss.41-45, 2016 (SCI-Expanded)
Maxillofacial defects may be reconstructed by plastic surgery or treated by prosthetic mean rehabilitation. In case of large defects, prosthetic rehabilitation rather than surgical reconstruction is preferred due to the insufficient esthetic results of surgical interventions. However, retention of the craniofacial prosthesis is a great problem despite the satisfactory esthetic results. With the presentation of extraoral implants, the retention of maxillofacial prostheses was improved, and osseointegrated craniofacial implants have become indispensable for retention and stability. However, there are conflicting results regarding the success rates of osseointegrated implants used at the craniofacial region. A total of 24 patients with 64 implants (30 in auricular region of 13 patients, 24 in nasal region of 8 patients, and 10 in orbital region of 3 patients) ranging in age from 16 to 83 years (mean age = 45.45 years) were evaluated. One patient among 13 patients (1/13) has lost his implants in the auricular area, 1 patient among 8 patients (1/8) lost his implants, and 1 patient among 3 patients (1/3) has lost all of her implants. Peri-implant soft tissue response was evaluated for a 60-month period and a total of 654 visits/sites recorded. Grade 0 (no irritation) was present in 72.8% (476/654) of the visits/sites. Grade 1 (slight redness) was observed for 18.8% (123/654). Grade 2 (red and slightly moist tissue) was scored in 6.9% (45/654). Grade 3 (red and slightly moist tissue with granulation) was noted in 1.5% (10/654) and grade 4 (infection) could not be found. Ossseointegrated implants provide reasonable support and show successful results when used with Maxillofacial prostheses.