medigraphic.com
SPANISH

Revista Odontológica Mexicana Órgano Oficial de la Facultad de Odontología UNAM

ISSN 1870-199X (Print)
Órgano oficial de la Facultad de Odontología, UNAM
  • Contents
  • View Archive
  • Information
    • General Information        
    • Directory
  • Publish
    • Instructions for authors        
  • medigraphic.com
    • Home
    • Journals index            
    • Register / Login
  • Mi perfil

2006, Number 1

<< Back Next >>

Rev Odont Mex 2006; 10 (1)

Design and manufacture of a retention bar for auricular prosthesis

Enseñat RA, Jiménez CR, González CAL, Benavides RA, Bernal AR
Full text How to cite this article

Language: Spanish
References: 9
Page: 42-48
PDF size: 224.66 Kb.


Key words:

Auricular prosthetics, osseointegrated implants, congenital defects.

ABSTRACT

One of the most frequent problems, in order to achieve satisfactory results in auricular prosthetics, is its long-term retention. Until now, adhesives have been the primary means of retention for this type of prosthesis. With the successful development of osseous integrated implants, many treatments for the craniofacial region are now available in order to avoid placement and retention prosthesis difficulties, as well as the treatment acceptance by the patient. Today, it is possible to offer all patients a functional prosthesis, higher aesthetics and a major retention. The aim of this study was to design and manufacture auricular prosthesis in order to replace the conventional chemical retention (adhesives) by a mechanical device, for which a free nickel and beryllium metal was selected (Remanium 2000). This alloy was used to elaborate the retention bar, as well as some castable current polymers used for intraoral prosthesis. Three clinical cases were presented from patients attending Maxillofacial Prosthetic Clinics of the School of Dentistry, University of Campeche. All of the three patients presented congenital anomalies in the auricular pavilion and were candidates for prosthesis retained by implants. The prosthesis placement was successful. Auricular mechanical prostheses consisted in a retainer bar placed on osseointegrated implants. The use of alternative materials reduced the auricular prosthesis commercial costs by 70%.


REFERENCES

  1. Hobo S, Ichida E, García LT. Oseointegración y rehabilitación oclusal. Madrid (ES): Ed. Marbán Libros; 1997.

  2. Branemark PI, Tolman DA. Osseointegration in craniofacial reconstruction. Quintessence Publishing; 1998.

  3. Beaumen J, Curtis A, Maurunick MT. Maxillofacial rehabilitation prosthodontic and surgical consideration. Ishiyaku Euroamerica Inc.; 1998.

  4. Branemark PI, Higuchi K, Ferraz M. Rehabilitation of complex cleft palate and craniomaxillofacial defects. Quintessence Publishing Co. Inc.; 1999.

  5. Thomas KF. Compromise in prosthetic treatment of orofacial defects: A clinical report. J Prosthet Dent 1996; 76: 115–8.

  6. Johnson MA. A technique for fabrication of interin midfacial prostheses. J Pronthet Dent 1992; 68: 940–2.

  7. Branemark PI, Ferraz M. Craniofacial prostheses. Quintessence Publishing Co. Inc; 1997.

  8. Luckey HA, Kubli F et al. Titanium alloys in surgical implants. Philadelphia (PA): STP 796 American Society for Testings and Materials; 1983.

  9. Rubin LR. Biomaterials in reconstructive surgery. St. Louis (MS): CV Mosby; 1983: 158.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com

Mi perfil

C?MO CITAR (Vancouver)

Rev Odont Mex. 2006;10