Maxillofacial Prostheses

Alumina and zirconia ceramics are also being used for alveolar ridge reconstruction (20), maxillofacial reconstruction, as ossicular bone substitutes (21), and in ophthalmology (22), knee prosthesis (8), bone screws as well as other applications as dental biomaterials, such as dental crown core, post, bracket and inlay (23,24). 

Poiyurethanss. This is the most recent material used in maxillofacial applications. Fabrication requires accurate proportioning of the components. The isocyanate and polyol are blended, placed in a suitable mold, and allowed to cure at room temperature. Colorants and other additives are also used in the formulations. Even though the fabricated prosthesis has a natural feel and appearance, the final product is still relatively unstable. 

Soft-tissue Prosthesis. Several useful reviews adequately cover the present status and recent advances in materials for oral, maxillofacial, plastic, and reconstructive surgery. ... 

Silicones were also used for the preparation of finger prosthesis, in the case of loss of fingers because of trauma, congenital disorders and excision for neoplastic disorders. Although microsurgical reconstruction by reimplantation or transplantation can be attempted to restore function of many finger defects, it may not be possible in crush and severe injuries. Customized silicone prostheses have a wider rate of acceptance, owing to their comfort, durability and stain resistance, which are far superior to any other available extraoral maxillofacial materials [17]. 

Distribution of 35 facial prostheses were reported by Leonard et al. [19] of these, 12 were congenital, and consequently 8 were traumatic, 8 were resected neoplasms and 7 were infectious defect prostheses. Karakoca et al. [20] reported the 60 facial prostheses as 32 auricular, 25 orbital and 13 nasal. Also, Hatamleh et al. [21] studied the types of facial prostheses that were constructed by maxillofacial prosthodontists and technologists as an alternative treatment when mctxiUofacial defects cannot be fulfilled surgically. In that study, 1193 prostheses were recorded and were followed. Of these, 42% of them were ocular, 31% were auricular, 13% were orbital, 12% were nasal and 1% was composite, that is, more than one facial prosthesis. 

Chlorinated polyethylene elastomer (CPE) is one of the alternatives of the PDMS. Extraoral maxillofacial prostheses have been fabricated with silicone elastomer for 50 years, with few improvements. A controlled, randomized, prospective, double-blind, single-crossover, multicenter, phase 111 clinical trial was performed by Kiat-Amnuay et al. to determine the noninferiority of CPE to silicone elastomer [46]. For this purpose, 42 patients were randomly assigned to wear a custom-made prosthesis fabricated from both materials for four months and asked to rate their satisfaction (0 = not satisfied, 10 = completely satisfied). Of the 28 patients who completed the study, 68% had used silicone prostheses previously. Overall, patients rated the silicone prosthesis higher than CPE (difference 2.2, 95% confidence interval [Cl] 0.9 to 3.6, P =. 017). Previous users had a stronger preference for silicone (difference 3.3, 95% Cl 1.7 to 4.9, P =... 

---