Extraoral Implants in the Rehabilitation of Craniofacial Defects: Implant and Prosthesis Survival Rates and Peri-Implant Soft Tissue Evaluation


Autoria(s): Curi, Marcos Martins; Oliveira, Marcelo Ferraz; Molina, Giuliano; Cardoso, Camila Lopes; Oliveira, Loretta De Groot; Branemark, Per-Ingvar; Braga Ribeiro, Karina de Cassia
Contribuinte(s)

UNIVERSIDADE DE SÃO PAULO

Data(s)

29/10/2013

29/10/2013

2012

Resumo

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. (C) 2012 American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons J Oral Maxillofac Surg 70:1551-1557, 2012

Identificador

JOURNAL OF ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY, PHILADELPHIA, v. 70, n. 7, supl. 1, Part 6, pp. 1551-1557, JUL, 2012

0278-2391

http://www.producao.usp.br/handle/BDPI/36174

10.1016/j.joms.2012.03.011

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2012.03.011

Idioma(s)

eng

Publicador

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC

PHILADELPHIA

Relação

JOURNAL OF ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY

Direitos

restrictedAccess

Copyright W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC

Palavras-Chave #FACIAL DEFECTS #RECONSTRUCTION #HEAD #SKIN #DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Tipo

article

original article

publishedVersion