Rehabilitation of a Patient with Anotia with Implant-retained Silicone Auricular Prosthesis Using Custom Fabricated Abutments and Bar: A Case Report
Poonam Prakash, Kirandeep Singh, Sujit K Bhandari
Contact dermatitis, Craniofacial implants, Custom made abutment & bar, Extraoral digital impression, Silicone auricular prosthesis
Citation Information :
Prakash P, Singh K, 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.
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.
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
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
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
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
Wolfaordt J, Tjellstrom A. International prospective on treatment outcome. In: Osseointegration in craniofacial reconstruction. Chicago(IL): Quintessence, 1998. p. 68–73.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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