International Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  14 (2024)
Volume  13 (2023)
Volume  12 (2022)
Volume  11 (2021)
Volume  10 (2020)
Volume  9 (2019)
Volume  8 (2018)
Volume  7 (2017)
Volume  6 (2016)
Volume  5 (2015)
Volume  4 (2014)
Volume  3 (2013)
Volume  2 (2012)
Volume  1 (2011)
Related articles

VOLUME 12 , ISSUE 1 ( January-March, 2022 ) > List of Articles

CASE REPORT

Rehabilitation of a Patient with Anotia with Implant-retained Silicone Auricular Prosthesis Using Custom Fabricated Abutments and Bar: A Case Report

Sujit K Bhandari

Keywords : Contact dermatitis, Craniofacial implants, Custom made abutment & bar, Extraoral digital impression, Silicone auricular prosthesis

Citation Information : Bhandari SK. Rehabilitation of a Patient with Anotia with Implant-retained Silicone Auricular Prosthesis Using Custom Fabricated Abutments and Bar: A Case Report. Int J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2022; 12 (1):42-45.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10019-1350

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 18-10-2022

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2022; The Author(s).


Abstract

Auricular defects in human beings result from congenital malformations, acquired from trauma or surgical resection of associated tumors and usually lack hard or soft tissue undercuts. The prostheses are retained with various chemical and mechanical aids such as skin adhesives, spectacles, and implants. Craniofacial titanium implants offer benefits such as absence of allergic skin reactions, produced with the other retentive aids in the form of skin adhesives. The most common problems associated with extraoral maxillofacial implants is peri-implantitis and soft tissue reactions such as contact dermatitis at the implant site which are further aggravated by the presence and continuous growth of hair follicles in the temporal region. Difficulty in hygiene maintenance at the implant site results in serious soft tissue complications difficult to manage. The case report presents the rehabilitation of an auricular defect that exhibited chronic dermatitis at the implant site, with silicone auricular prosthesis using custom fabricated abutments along with bar and clip assembly. This resulted in improved parallelism between abutments and provided a self-cleansing area below the bar assembly.

PDF Share
  1. Schilli W. Facial deformities and their treatment. Int Dent J 1982;32(2):168–174. PMID: 6749695.
  2. De Sousa A. Psychological issues in acquired facial trauma. Indian J Plast Surg 2010;43(2):200–205. DOI: 10.4103/0970-0358.73452
  3. Ravuri R, Ravuri R, Bheemalingeshwarrao, Tella S, et al. Auricular prosthesis-a case report. J Clin Diagn Res 2014;8(1):294–296. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2014/7943.3986
  4. Gurjar R, Kumar S, Rao H, et al. Retentive aids in maxillofacial prosthodontics-a review. Int J Contemp Dent 2011;2(3):84–88. DOI: 10.18231/j.aprd.2019.001
  5. Abu-Serriah MM, McGowan DA, Moos KF, et al. Outcome of extra-oral craniofacial endosseous implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2001;39(4):269–275. DOI: 10.1054/bjom.2000.0578
  6. Nishimura RD, Roumanas E, Sugai T, et al. Auricular prostheses and osseointegrated implants: UCLA experience. J Prosthet Dent 1995;73(6):553–558. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-3913(05)80115-5
  7. Arshad M, Shirani G, Refoua S. Rehabilitation of an auricular defect using surgical stent. World J Plast Surg 2018;7(1):113–117. PMID: 29651401.
  8. Reisberg DJ, Habakuk SW. Hygiene procedures for implant-retained facial prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 1995;74(5):499–502. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-3913(05)80352-x
  9. Luquetti DV, Leoncini E, Mastroiacovo P. Microtia-anotia: a global review of prevalence rates. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol 2011;91(9):813–822. DOI: 10.1002/bdra.20836
  10. Arora V, Sahoo NK, Gopi A, et al. Implant-retained auricular prostheses: a clinical challenge. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2016;45(5):631–635. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2015.12.011
  11. Nanda A, Jain V, Kumar R, et al. Implant-supported auricular prosthesis. Indian J Dent Res 2011;22(1):152–156. DOI: 10.4103/0970-9290.79983
  12. Federspil PA. Implant- retained craniofacial prostheses for facial defects – a review article. GMS Curr Top Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2009; 8: Doc3. DOI: 10.3205/cto000055
  13. Wolfaordt J, Tjellstrom A. International prospective on treatment outcome. In: Osseointegration in craniofacial reconstruction. Chicago(IL): Quintessence, 1998. p. 68–73.
  14. Lovely M, Naidu EM, Nair C, Design and development of an implant system for auricular prosthesis. Trends Biomater Artif Organs 2010;24:11–18. Corpus ID: 1764194.
  15. Parel SM, Tjellström A. The United States and Swedish experience with osseointegration and facial prostheses. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1991;6(1):75–79. PMID: 1843497.
  16. Holgers KM, Tjellström A, Bjursten LM, et al. Soft tissue reactions around percutaneous implants: a clinical study of soft tissue conditions around skin-penetrating titanium implants for bone-anchored hearing aids. Am J Otol 1988;9(1):56–59. PMID: 3364537.
  17. Emera RM. Prosthetic reconstruction of maxillo-facial defects by means of 3d optical reverse engineering and prototyping: a review article. Egypt Dent J 2012;58(3):2629–2639.
  18. Joshi MD, Dange SP, Khalikar AN. Rapid prototyping technology in maxillofacial prosthodontics: basics and applications. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2006;6(4):175. DOI: 10.4103/0972-4052.30691
  19. Balik A, Ozdemir-Karatas M, Peker K, et al. Soft tissue response and survival of extraoral implants: a long-term follow-up. J Oral Implantol 2016;42(1):41–45. DOI: 10.1563/aaid-joi-D-14-00086
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.