Garduño GA, Jiménez CR, González CV, Benavides RA

Language: Spanish
References: 20
Page: 24-30
PDF size: 296.18 Kb.

ABSTRACT

The magnitude of the problems that patients have when they need a prosthetic rehabilitation make necessary the materials to possess biocompatible physical, chemical and biological characteristics and to provide each patient the possibility of safer methods of fixation, retention and stability, which constitutes an important aspect, because of the risk of fall of the prosthetics, caused by the size and the complexity of facial structures, such as the ear, the nose or the eyes. Nowadays, the biotechnology, the stereolitography, and the technological advances in the biomedical area, allows us to select the most appropriate method for each patient for a successful prosthetic rehabilitation. Presently, the osseointegration surgical-prosthetic technique is the most accepted by patients, since it by provides excellent prosthetic retention, integrating them to the social life with a bigger freedom of movements, increasing their security and self-confidence.

REFERENCES

1. Ring ME et al. The history of maxilofacial prosthetics. Plastic and Reconstr Surg 1991; 87(1): 174-184.

2. Schneider UF, Gellrich NC. Une épithèse ancrée sur des implants et attachements magnétiques la réhabilitation de la région orbito-zygomatique – Présentation d’un cas. Rev Mens Suisse Odontostomatol 2002; (112): 351-4.

3. May O, Russo C. Montevideo 30 de octubre de 1999. Rev Salud Militar septiembre Vol. 24 (1).

4. Alvarado GE, González CV, Jiménez CR. Reporte de casos clínicos de prótesis combinadas (intraoral y extraoral). Gaceta Mexicana de Oncología 2003-30-37.

5. Gerolf Gehl. Zurich Epitética quirúrgica II. www.sld.cu/galerias

6. Von Armin HH, Schwensen N, Veigel W. Tratamientos de los defectos faciales postquirúrgicos por medio de prótesis maxilofacial. Acta Odont Venezolana 1978; XVI(1).

7. Kiat-Amnuay S, Gentleman L, Khan Z, Goldsmith J. Effect of adhesive retention on maxillofacial prostheses. Part I: Skin dressings and solvent removers. J Prosthet Dent 2000; 84: 335-40.

8. Parel JM. Dependencia cada vez menor de los adhesivos para la retención de las prótesis faciales. J Prost Dent 1980; 43(5): 552-560.

9. Kiat-Amnuay S, Gettleman L, Goldsmith LJ. Related Articles, Links Effect of multiadhesive layering on retention of extraoral maxillofacial silicone prostheses in vivo. J Prosthet Dent 2004; 92(3): 294-8.

10. Kiat-Amnuay S, Gettleman L, Khan Z, Orfebre LJ. Effect of adhesive retention on maxillofacial prostheses, Part II: time and reapplication effect. J Prosthe Dent 2001; 85(5): 438-41.

11. Fumero M. Prótesis orbitaria flexible integrada a los anteojos. Odontoestomatología 2001; 6:20-4. www.odon.edu.uy/odontoestoma.com

12. Per Ingvar Bränemark, Kenji W. Higuchi. Marcelo Ferraz de Oliveira DDS. Quintessence Publishing. Co. Inc. 1999

13. Albrektsson T, Brånemark P-I, Jacobsson M, Tjellström A. Present clinical applications of osseointegrated percutaneous implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 1987; 79: 721–730.

14. Tjellström A. Osseointegrated systems and their application in the head and neck. Adv Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1989; 3: 39–70.

15. Lemon JC, Kiat-amnuay S, Gettleman L, Martin JW, Chambers MS. Related Articles, Links Facial prosthetic rehabilitation: preprosthetic surgical techniques and biomaterials. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2005; 13(4): 255-62.

16. Gerolf G. Epitética quirúrgica III; Elementos de fijación en las epítesis craneofaciales retenidas por implantes. www.sld.cu/galerias

17. Kambaksh J. Acceptability of orbital protheses. J Prost Dent 1980; 43(1): 82-85.

18. Vilas-Boas SA, Hernández-Arriaga M, Asin-LLorca F et al. Orbital prosthesis: A clinical case report. RCOE 2003; 8(5): 553-561.I.

19. Butler DF, Gion BA, Ronald PBS. Rapini MD. Lubbock, Texas Silicone auricular prosthesis. J Am Acad Dermatol 2000: 687-690.

20. Labor für Biophysik. CAD/CAM; Dessing of facial prostheses with a 3D optical data acquisition system 06/12/2004 www.labbiophys. klinikum.uni