Three Tumor Patients with Total Maxillectomy Rehabilitated with Implant-Supported Frameworks and Maxillary Obturators: A Follow-Up Report

• Published in: Clinical implant dentistry and related research 2010-12, Vol.12 (4), p.315-323
• Main Author: Oertorp, Anders
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adult; Aged; Carcinoma - rehabilitation; Carcinoma - surgery; Carcinoma, Squamous Cell - rehabilitation; Carcinoma, Squamous Cell - surgery; Chondrosarcoma - rehabilitation; Chondrosarcoma - surgery; complications; Dental Implantation, Endosseous - instrumentation; Dental Implantation, Endosseous - methods; Dental Prosthesis Design; Dental Prosthesis Retention - instrumentation; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Dentistry; Female; Follow-Up Studies; framework design; Humans; Magnetics - instrumentation; magnets; Male; Maxilla; Maxilla - surgery; maxillary defect; Maxillary Neoplasms - rehabilitation; Maxillary Neoplasms - surgery; Middle Aged; Odontologi; Palatal Obturators; Reconstructive Surgical Procedures - instrumentation; Reconstructive Surgical Procedures - methods; Tumors; Zygoma - surgery; zygoma implants
• ISSN: 1523-0899; 1708-8208; 1708-8208
• DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2009.00164.x

ABSTRACT Background: Few reports are available on treatment using implant‐supported frameworks with maxillary obturators after total maxillectomy on tumor patients. Purpose: To describe, evaluate, and report the clinical and radiographic performance of implant‐supported frameworks and maxillary obturators after maxillectomy during the first years of function. Materials and Methods: Three patients with cancer in the maxillary region treated by total maxillectomy were rehabilitated. Seventeen dental and two craniofacial implants were installed, and the patients each received implant‐supported, screw‐retained, three‐unit frameworks with a U‐shaped bar and obturators retained by four magnetic attachments. Clinical and radiographic data were collected up to 7 years of follow‐up. Results: The frequency of complications was low. Two craniofacial implants and one dental implant were loose and removed at abutment connection. No implants were lost after framework connection, and the mean marginal bone loss was small. Conclusion: Within the limitations of this report, dental implants are useful for rehabilitation of total maxillectomy patients, and a three‐unit, screw‐retained, implant‐supported framework with maxillary obturator retained by magnetic attachment is a successful treatment concept for this patient group.