**7.1. Keystone 7.1. Keystone**

Table 2. Brishi

Keystone offers one of the most basic surgical guide systems, hence the coined term "Easy‐ Guide" for their planning software. EasyGuide can be utilized for planning implant placement in single tooth edentulous spaces, partially edentulous spaces, and completely edentulous arches. The Keystone surgical guide can only be used in single tooth edentulous spaces and partially edentulous spaces.

During the CBCT, the patient wears a laboratory fabricated radiographic guide with barium sulfate incorporated in the areas where the teeth will be replaced. This guide also has a built in radiographic "X Marker", which is subsequently used by Keystone to fabricate the surgical guide. The clinician then plans the implant placement in the EasyGuide computer program and virtually sends this information to Keystone to fabricate the surgical guide, if desired.

The surgical guide is fabricated from the digital planning. The clinician must send the radiographic guide with the incorporated "X Marker" to Keystone, which uses this to orient the guide to the patient's jaw. Keystone then will fabricate the surgical guide either as "directional" or "depth and directional", depending on the clinician's wishes. This means that the guide can be used to direct the implant at the correct angle and it can also be used to direct it to the correct depth in the bone.

#### **7.2. Biohorizons**

Biohorizons is another very simple and basic implant planning program that offers a userfriendly technique but limited options to the clinician. The surgical guide, called a Compu-Guide, can be fabricated for single implant placement, partially edentulous multiple implant placement, and fully edentulous multiple implant placement.

The patient wears a laboratory fabricated radiographic guide during the CBCT which is fabricated to the planning software, VIP, specifications. Then the clinician may digitally plan the implant placement using the VIP computer software. This software allows the placement of any type of implant system.

This information along with the radiographic guide is sent to Biohorizons which fabricates the Pilot Compu-Guide, a surgical guide that allows only the pilot drills to be sequenced through the guide. The clinician inserts the Compu-Guide and stabilizes it. The pilot osteomoties are drilled to length, then the guide is removed, and the twist drills are then used free-hand without the guide, according to the implant manufacturer's protocol. This method increases the possibility of error because the angulation may be altered when using the twist drills.

#### **7.3. NobelBiocare**

record to disclude the patient's posterior teeth by about 5 mm. Then a cast of the patient is scanned and a diagnostic wax‐up is scanned. The computer is then able to orient these images to each other and the practitioner can digitally plan the implant placement in reference to the patients alveolar bone and planned tooth positions. A surgical guide

All of these choices are viable options for fabricating a surgical guide. Each situation is unique and depending on the practitioners resources and relationship with their radiologist, the practitioner may choose any option he or she

The aim of this section is not to advertise any specific company, and we just want to share our experiences with these surgical guides. Surgical guides are fabricated by many manufactures, most notable the major implant companies. Each company has a unique planning software program as well as various choices for scanning protocol, guide materials, and design of the guide. Depending on the case, different manufacturers must be considered in certain situations. For example, if dual‐scan protocol was desired, only NobelBiocare and Anatomage offer this option.

‐ How well can you maneuver the software program? Or will your radiologist be manipulating most of the digital

‐ If you plan on doing the virtual placement yourself, make sure you are comfortable with the program. Each

‐ What kind of radiographic scanning protocol to you plan on using? Do you prefer the dual‐scan protocol in which a denture can be quickly converted into a radiographic guide? Or do you prefer to have your lab fabricate

‐ Do you plan on using bone, mucosa, or tooth supported guides? Or do you want to have the option of using all

These are all considerations that must be taken into account before investing in any imaging software because once

Another consideration is that different implant‐planning softwares allow different levels of resolution of the CBCT data. So even if the CBCT machine is capable of taking high resolution images, the planning software you choose may not be able to open the full resolution which was recorded. When placing implants, any fraction of a millimeter

> Keystone Universal ✔ ✔ \$\$ Biohorizon Universal ✔ ✔ ✔ \$\$ NobelBiocare NobelBiocare ✔ ✔ ✔ \$\$ Anatomage Universal ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ \$ Materialise Universal ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ \$\$\$

Keystone offers one of the most basic surgical guide systems, hence the coined term "Easy‐ Guide" for their planning software. EasyGuide can be utilized for planning implant placement in single tooth edentulous spaces, partially edentulous spaces, and completely edentulous arches. The Keystone surgical guide can only be used in single tooth edentulous spaces and

During the CBCT, the patient wears a laboratory fabricated radiographic guide with barium sulfate incorporated in the areas where the teeth will be replaced. This guide also has a built in radiographic "X Marker", which is subsequently used by Keystone to fabricate the surgical guide. The clinician then plans the implant placement in the EasyGuide computer program and virtually sends this information to Keystone to fabricate the surgical guide, if desired.

The surgical guide is fabricated from the digital planning. The clinician must send the radiographic guide with the incorporated "X Marker" to Keystone, which uses this to orient the guide to the patient's jaw. Keystone then will fabricate the surgical guide either as "directional" or "depth and directional", depending on the clinician's wishes. This means that the guide can be used to direct the implant at the correct angle and it can also be used to direct

Biohorizons is another very simple and basic implant planning program that offers a userfriendly technique but limited options to the clinician. The surgical guide, called a Compu-Guide, can be fabricated for single implant placement, partially edentulous multiple implant

The patient wears a laboratory fabricated radiographic guide during the CBCT which is fabricated to the planning software, VIP, specifications. Then the clinician may digitally plan the implant placement using the VIP computer software. This software allows the placement

This information along with the radiographic guide is sent to Biohorizons which fabricates the Pilot Compu-Guide, a surgical guide that allows only the pilot drills to be sequenced through the guide. The clinician inserts the Compu-Guide and stabilizes it. The pilot osteomoties are drilled to length, then the guide is removed, and the twist drills are then used free-hand

placement, and fully edentulous multiple implant placement.

**Support Type Material Cost Bone Mucosa Tooth Resin Stereolith**

company offers a different program and these are not all as user‐friendly as the next.

can then be fabricated from the digital design.

Dummy Text **Things to Consider When Choosing a System**

a separate radiographic guide for the scan?

**Company Implant**

158 Current Concepts in Dental Implantology

partially edentulous spaces.

it to the correct depth in the bone.

of any type of implant system.

**7.2. Biohorizons**

Table 2. Brishi

**7.1. Keystone 7.1. Keystone**

you do, you will be limited by that companies available options.

**Systems**

in the wrong direction may have a significant compromise on the outcome.

implant planning for you?

three, depending on the case?

prefers.

**7. Companies**

NobelBiocare offers a very sturdy stereolithographic surgical guide with multiple indications for use, but can only be used with NobelBiocare implants. This system can be used for single tooth edentulous sites, partially edentulous sites, and completely edentulous arches.

The CBCT prescription requests a dual-scan protocol. The dual-scan protocol requires two scans: one scan of the patient while wearing the radiographic guide and one scan of the radiographic guide by itself. The radiographic guide has built-in fiduciary markers, which allow the software to overlay the two separate scanned images. Fiduciary markers are gutta percha dots added into the radiographic guide. If the patient is already wearing a well-fitting denture, these markers can be added to the denture very easily. If the patient does not have a well-fitting denture, a new tooth-set up should be tried in and then duplicated or processed into a radiographic guide. The fiduciary markers can be added to the radiographic guide by drilling eight to ten round divots throughout and filling them with gutta percha. They should be 1mm x 1 mm in size, and spread throughout the guide in different horizontal and vertical levels.

The planning software, NobelClinician, will fuse the two files, using the fiduciary markers, so that the patient's anatomy can be visualized with and without the radiographic guide in place. In other words, the anatomical data and prosthetic data can be visualized separately. Nobel‐ Clinician allows various views and reslices of the scan. It also shows a yellow safety zone around implants, which is especially important when performing flapless surgery. This safety zone helps prevents implants from being placed too close to anatomical structures or to other implants. The program also shows technical restrictions in red. For example, the software prevents the clinician from placing implants close to each other due to the width requirement of the metal sleeve in the guide. This is a complication of the fabrication of the guide to be the strongest possible in the areas where the implant drill will be entering. If the acrylic between two sleeves is thin, the guide may break in that area. If a clinician desires to place implants fairly close together, another system may be better suited.

NobelBiocare offers tooth-borne and mucosal-borne guides, but not bone-based guides. So for the completely edentulous patient, a mucosal-borne guide must be chosen. The clinician will run into a problem if the edentulous patient has very thick gingival tissue. The mucosal-based surgical guide is fabricated so that the head of the implants are placed 3 mm from the intaglio surface of the surgical guide, assuming the average patient has 3 mm of gingival tissue thickness. So if the patients gingiva is more than 3 mm thick, and the implants were digitally planned to be at the crest of bone, then the intaglio surface of the surgical guide will impinge upon the patients tissue. The easiest way around this is to relieve the intaglio surface of the guide around the drill hole, before placing it in the patient's mouth.

The virtual planning will be completed on NobelClinician, which is one of the only programs that runs on Windows and Mac OS X. The NobelClinician software also allows planning of the abutments with digital visualization. This is particularly useful when placing angled implants which will need angled multi-unit abutments. The planned information from NobelClinician is sent electronically to NobelBiocare Production Center where the Nobel‐ Guide is produced centrally.

The following photos show how to make a Nobelguide and to restore a patient with an immediate implant-retained overdenture (Figures 1-20).

**Figure 1.** Complete denture with fiduciary markers is used as radiographic guide.

**Figure 2.** Patient wears complete denture with fiduciary markers during CBCT scan.

**Figure 3.** Occlusal view of maxillary surgical guide and maxilla on software.

the abutments with digital visualization. This is particularly useful when placing angled implants which will need angled multi-unit abutments. The planned information from NobelClinician is sent electronically to NobelBiocare Production Center where the Nobel‐

The following photos show how to make a Nobelguide and to restore a patient with an

Guide is produced centrally.

160 Current Concepts in Dental Implantology

immediate implant-retained overdenture (Figures 1-20).

**Figure 1.** Complete denture with fiduciary markers is used as radiographic guide.

**Figure 2.** Patient wears complete denture with fiduciary markers during CBCT scan.

**Figure 4.** Occlusal view of maxillary surgical guide on sofware after removing maxillary bone.

**Figure 5.** Frontal view of maxillary surgical guide and maxilla.

**Figure 6.** Occlusal view of actual surgical guide fabricated at NobelBiocare production center.

**Figure 7.** Surgical guide is inserted with bite-registration.

**Figure 8.** Anchor pins are placed to secure surgical guide.

**Figure 5.** Frontal view of maxillary surgical guide and maxilla.

162 Current Concepts in Dental Implantology

**Figure 6.** Occlusal view of actual surgical guide fabricated at NobelBiocare production center.

**Figure 9.** Drills are used to prepare implant sockets.

**Figure 10.** Implants are placed through metal sleeves.

**Figure 11.** All implants are placed.

**Figure 12.** Surgical guide is removed after all implants are placed.

**Figure 13.** Locater abutments are screwed on implants.

**Figure 10.** Implants are placed through metal sleeves.

164 Current Concepts in Dental Implantology

**Figure 11.** All implants are placed.

**Figure 12.** Surgical guide is removed after all implants are placed.

**Figure 14.** Metal housings are seated on locaters.

**Figure 15.** Enough room is needed for locaters and metal housings.

**Figure 16.** Enough room is created for locaters and metal housings.

**Figure 17.** Metal housing are attached to complete denture.

**Figure 18.** Complete denture is converted to immediate implant-retained overdenture.

**Figure 19.** Intra-oral view of patient.

**Figure 16.** Enough room is created for locaters and metal housings.

166 Current Concepts in Dental Implantology

**Figure 17.** Metal housing are attached to complete denture.

**Figure 18.** Complete denture is converted to immediate implant-retained overdenture.

**Figure 20.** Panoramic radiograph of patient.

#### **7.4. Anatomage**

Anatomage is a system which offers some of the most options when planning implant placement with a surgical guide. The biggest downside of this system is that the guides are fabricated out of a conventional acrylic resin, which easily flexes under high loads of stress during implant placement. One must be very careful when choosing to use this system in a patient with a large edentulous area because it can easily be torqued out of position. Due to the material used, one benefit of this system is that the guides are cheaper than any other system. The price is a fixed price no matter how many implants are being placed.

This system, similar to the NobelClinician, prescribes for a dual-scan protocol. The company boasts that their planning software does not require a scanning appliance (or radiographic guide). Instead, a stone model and/or wax-up is scanned in order to visualize the planned positions of the teeth on the image. The planning software, InVivo5, allows the planning of any type of implant as well as bone-based, mucosal-based, and tooth-based guides. InVivo5 offers high quality volume rendering with some of the best visualization options. The volume easily switches between transparent hard tissues, as well as detailed bone, airway, or skin profiles.

The surgical guide is fabricated centrally by Anatomage in order to preserve the fixed price. Along with the surgical guide, the clinician may choose to order specialized depth control drills to gain the most guidance.

#### **7.5. Materialise**

Materialise offers the most versatile implant planning program. They will provide bone-based, mucosal-based, and tooth-based guides. And all three types are fabricated by stereolithogra‐ phy so that they are the most rigid. A tooth-supported SurgiGuide is suitable for minimally invasive surgery. Since the guide was fabricated from virtual planning, it is not necessary to raise a flap for implant placement. A plaster cast of the pre-surgical teeth must be sent to Materialise with the SimPlant virtual plan. A mucosa-supported SurgiGuide is indicated when minimally invasive surgery is necessary for a fully edentulous case. A bone-supported SurgiGuide is appropriate for a partially or fully edentulous case when increased visibility or more surgical procedures are necessary.

The patient is scanned using the clinicians method of choice, either single-scan or dual-scan protocol. If choosing the dual-scan protocol, the clinician may purchase the dual scan markers from Materialise or add the fiduciary markers on their own. The digital planning is then performed using the software Simplant Planner. SimPlant Planner provides a library with more than 8000 different implants and abutments to provide easy surgical guide fabrication. Any implant system may be prescribed when using Materialise. The planned information is virtually sent to Materialise, and the surgical guide, Surgiguide, is fabricated.

If the clinician would like to convert the CBCT images into the 3D representation, the software SimPlant Pro is available for this. When using SimPlant Planner this conversion is performed by Materialise. SimPlant also offers a free software program, called SimPlant View, which allows anyone to view the files. So when planning a case between different team members, such as a surgeon, restorative dentist and lab technician, all team members may view the case on their personal computer.

There are three different options when choosing the surgical guide, SurgiGuide: Pilot, Universal, and SAFE. The Pilot SurgiGuide offers the guidance during the initial pilot drilling, and then the guide is removed and the drilling sequence is completed free-hand. This is best used in straightforward and simple cases. It is similar to Biohorizons Pilot Compu-Guide. The Universal SurgiGuide offers a fixed implant position and angulation, without depth control. The drill depth is provided in the prescription sent with the SurgiGuide so the clinician knows how deep to drill. The drills are guided through the SurgiGuide, and when the drilling sequence is completed, the guide is removed and the implants are placed in the osteotomies. Lastly, the SAFE SurgiGuide offers a fixed implant position, angulation, and depth. This guide provides the most controlled system.

Materialise also offers bone reduction guides. If the clinician is planning for a prosthesis which requires more restorative space than is available, a bone reduction guide can first be used to perform a precise amount of alveoloplasty. Afterwards, a bone-based implant surgical guide is placed, according to the amount of bone reduction, and the implants are predictable placed at that new bone level. When positioning the implants in the SimPlant Planner, place them at the desired subcrestal positions. The white dots around the implants in SimPlant show the bone height desired after placement. These can be moved up and down as desired. The SimPlant designers then have enough information to produce the drill guide as well as the bone reduction guide.

#### **7.6. Laboratory procedures**

offers high quality volume rendering with some of the best visualization options. The volume easily switches between transparent hard tissues, as well as detailed bone, airway, or skin

The surgical guide is fabricated centrally by Anatomage in order to preserve the fixed price. Along with the surgical guide, the clinician may choose to order specialized depth control

Materialise offers the most versatile implant planning program. They will provide bone-based, mucosal-based, and tooth-based guides. And all three types are fabricated by stereolithogra‐ phy so that they are the most rigid. A tooth-supported SurgiGuide is suitable for minimally invasive surgery. Since the guide was fabricated from virtual planning, it is not necessary to raise a flap for implant placement. A plaster cast of the pre-surgical teeth must be sent to Materialise with the SimPlant virtual plan. A mucosa-supported SurgiGuide is indicated when minimally invasive surgery is necessary for a fully edentulous case. A bone-supported SurgiGuide is appropriate for a partially or fully edentulous case when increased visibility or

The patient is scanned using the clinicians method of choice, either single-scan or dual-scan protocol. If choosing the dual-scan protocol, the clinician may purchase the dual scan markers from Materialise or add the fiduciary markers on their own. The digital planning is then performed using the software Simplant Planner. SimPlant Planner provides a library with more than 8000 different implants and abutments to provide easy surgical guide fabrication. Any implant system may be prescribed when using Materialise. The planned information is

If the clinician would like to convert the CBCT images into the 3D representation, the software SimPlant Pro is available for this. When using SimPlant Planner this conversion is performed by Materialise. SimPlant also offers a free software program, called SimPlant View, which allows anyone to view the files. So when planning a case between different team members, such as a surgeon, restorative dentist and lab technician, all team members may view the case

There are three different options when choosing the surgical guide, SurgiGuide: Pilot, Universal, and SAFE. The Pilot SurgiGuide offers the guidance during the initial pilot drilling, and then the guide is removed and the drilling sequence is completed free-hand. This is best used in straightforward and simple cases. It is similar to Biohorizons Pilot Compu-Guide. The Universal SurgiGuide offers a fixed implant position and angulation, without depth control. The drill depth is provided in the prescription sent with the SurgiGuide so the clinician knows how deep to drill. The drills are guided through the SurgiGuide, and when the drilling sequence is completed, the guide is removed and the implants are placed in the osteotomies. Lastly, the SAFE SurgiGuide offers a fixed implant position, angulation, and depth. This guide

virtually sent to Materialise, and the surgical guide, Surgiguide, is fabricated.

profiles.

**7.5. Materialise**

drills to gain the most guidance.

168 Current Concepts in Dental Implantology

more surgical procedures are necessary.

on their personal computer.

provides the most controlled system.

A virtually planned surgical guide for the placement of implants offers not only a predictable method for the surgical placement of the implants, but also a more convenient and time saving method for the fabricating provisional restorations. A clinician may use a surgical guide to its full advantage by preparing the provisionals before the day of surgery. Either the clinician or a lab technician can prefabricate the implant provisionals using the surgical template. First, a master cast is fabricated using the surgical guide. Implant analogs are attached to the guide, large undercuts are blocked out, a soft tissue matrix is fabricated, and stone is poured into the guide. This master cast can then be mounted against the opposing cast using the premade bite index which was utilized during the CBCT scan. Provisional restorations can be fabricated on this master cast, which will then be ready for chairside pick-up of the implants after surgery. This method provides an easy way to do immediate loading of implants on the day of surgery.

This is a popular method being advertised worldwide and is an advantageous strategy for attracting patients to your office. Patients are given an immediate result with predictable esthetics, phonetics, and function if the laboratory steps and chairside pick-up are followed correctly.

#### **8. Alternative benefits of virtual planning**

Another advantage of using virtual planning for dental implants is the ability to fabricate implant frameworks through scanning of the master cast. After implants have osseointegrated, a final implant-level impression is made, and a master cast is made and verified. Then a 3-D scanner will scan the implant positions and the framework can be designed virtually for the final prosthesis. From the virtual design, the framework is then milled from a block of metal [3]. Each scanning company has different milling materials to choose from. The framework can support a hybrid, bar-overdenture, or implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (such as screw-retained PFM crowns or FDPs). This framework can either be designed virtually or it can be designed in acrylic on the master cast and scanned (i.e., copy-milled). The latter of the two options is a better choice for complicated clinical situations with no room for error, such as implant-supported fixed dental prostheses. This prosthetic design requires very specific dimensions for the final porcelain layer, and thus should always be copy-milled. Hybrid cases which were planned well with enough restorative space can usually be designed virtually with retention elements added for the acrylic which will be surrounding the milled metal frame‐ work.

Milling provides a much more accurate framework than conventional casting because there is no shrinkage involved. When a multiple-implant framework is waxed and cast, it takes extra time because it must be sectioned and soldered after shrinkage. The milled frameworks, on the other hand, are milled to fit the implant positions exactly and involve no shrinkage or distortion of the metal. The major disadvantage of choosing a milled framework is that the companies offer only a limited number of material choices. Most companies do not offer a metal which porcelain can be added to predictably.

The following photos show how to make a milled titanium framework using NobelProcera software and scanner and to restore a patient with an implant-supported fixed dental pros‐ thesis (Figures 21-34).

**Figure 21.** Final impression for each arch is made.

**Figure 22.** Denture teeth are arranged in the laboratory.

**Figure 23.** Both trial dentures are verified clinically.

which were planned well with enough restorative space can usually be designed virtually with retention elements added for the acrylic which will be surrounding the milled metal frame‐

Milling provides a much more accurate framework than conventional casting because there is no shrinkage involved. When a multiple-implant framework is waxed and cast, it takes extra time because it must be sectioned and soldered after shrinkage. The milled frameworks, on the other hand, are milled to fit the implant positions exactly and involve no shrinkage or distortion of the metal. The major disadvantage of choosing a milled framework is that the companies offer only a limited number of material choices. Most companies do not offer a

The following photos show how to make a milled titanium framework using NobelProcera software and scanner and to restore a patient with an implant-supported fixed dental pros‐

metal which porcelain can be added to predictably.

work.

thesis (Figures 21-34).

170 Current Concepts in Dental Implantology

**Figure 21.** Final impression for each arch is made.

**Figure 22.** Denture teeth are arranged in the laboratory.

**Figure 24.** Mandibular definitive cast is sprayed with zinc-oxide powder before placing scanning abutments.

**Figure 25.** Scanning abutments are screwed on the implant replicas, and definitive cast mounted for scanning.

**Figure 26.** Occlusal view of mandibular cast with implant positions after scanning process.

**Figure 27.** Trial denture is sprayed with zinc-oxide powder after placing it on definitive cast.

**Figure 28.** Note red line generated by laser probe during trial denture scanning process.

**Figure 29.** Occlusal view of trial denture overlapping mandibular cast including implants after scanning process.

**Figure 30.** Frontal view of final design of mandibular framework.

**Figure 26.** Occlusal view of mandibular cast with implant positions after scanning process.

172 Current Concepts in Dental Implantology

**Figure 27.** Trial denture is sprayed with zinc-oxide powder after placing it on definitive cast.

**Figure 28.** Note red line generated by laser probe during trial denture scanning process.

**Figure 31.** Occlusal view of final design of mandibular framework.

**Figure 32.** Clinical fit of mandibular framework verified.

**Figure 33.** Intraoral view after both restorations are inserted.

**Figure 34.** Panoramic radiograph after maxillary complete denture and mandibular FDP are inserted.

#### **9. Conclusion**

This chapter aimed to explain virtual treatment planning by using softwares, scanners and CAD/CAM technology. Each person involved in this process should possess the knowledge to use these softwares and hardwares, which require advanced training and experience. Otherwise, failures would be inevitable and costly. Although each step was explained and illustrated in great detail, the readers need to make to sure that they have proper knowledge, armemantarium, and experience before attempting to these types of treatment.

#### **Author details**

**Figure 32.** Clinical fit of mandibular framework verified.

174 Current Concepts in Dental Implantology

**Figure 33.** Intraoral view after both restorations are inserted.

**Figure 34.** Panoramic radiograph after maxillary complete denture and mandibular FDP are inserted.

Ilser Turkyilmaz1\*, Caroline Corrigan Eskow1 and Gokce Soganci2

\*Address all correspondence to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
1 Department of Comprehensive Dentistry, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, Texas, United States of America

2 Department of Prosthodontics, Oral and Dental Health Center, Ankara, Turkey

#### **References**

[19] Turbush SK, Turkyilmaz I. Accuracy of three different types of stereolithographic surgical guide in implant placement: an in vitro study. The Journal of Prosthetic Den‐ tistry. 2012;108(3):181-8.

[6] Vasak C, Kohal RJ, Lettner S, Rohner D, Zechner W. Clinical and radiological evalua‐ tion of a template-guided (NobelGuide™) treatment concept. Clinical Oral Implants

[7] Tardieu PB, Vrielinck L, Escolano E, Henne M, Tardieu AL. Computer-assisted im‐ plant placement: scan template, simplant, surgiguide, and SAFE system. The Interna‐

[8] White SC, Pharoah MJ. The evolution and application of dental maxillofacial imaging

[9] Pharoah MJ. Imaging techniques and their clinical significance. The International

[10] Hounsfield GN. Computerized transverse axial scanning (tomography). 1. Descrip‐

[11] Choi JH, Baek SY, Kim Y, Son TG, Park S, Lee K. Automatic detection of inferior al‐ veolar nerve canal from cone-beam computed tomography images for dental surgery

[12] Bornstein MM, Scarfe WC, Vaughn VM, Jacobs R. Cone beam computed tomography in implant dentistry: a systematic review focusing on guidelines, indications, and ra‐ diation dose risks. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants. 2014;29

[13] Pedroso LA, Garcia RR, Leles JL, Leles CR, Silva MA. Impact of cone-beam comput‐ ed tomography on implant planning and on prediction of implant size. Brazilian Or‐

[14] Gray CF. Practice-based cone-beam computed tomography: a review. Primary Den‐

[15] Chau AC, Fung K. Comparison of radiation dose for implant imaging using conven‐ tional spiral tomography, computed tomography, and cone-beam computed tomog‐ raphy. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology, and

[16] Resnik RR, Kircos LT, Misch, CE. Diagnostic Imaging and Techniques In: Contempo‐ rary Implant Dentistry, (Misch CE) 3rd ed. Mosby Elsevier, St. Louis, Missouri; 2008,

[17] Schulze RK, Berndt D, d'Hoedt B. On cone-beam computed tomography artifacts in‐ duced by titanium implants. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2010;21(1):100-7. [18] Hunter AK, McDavid WD. Characterization and correction of cupping effect arte‐

facts in cone beam CT. Dentomaxillofacial Radiology. 2012;41(3):217-23.

tional Journal of Periodontics and Restorative Dentistry. 2007;27(2):141-9.

modalities. Dental Clinics of North America. 2008; 52(4):689-705.

tion of system. British Journal of Radiology. 1973;46(552):1016-22.

planning. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics. 2014;196:61-5.

Journal of Prosthodontics. 1993; 6(2):176-9.

Research. 2014;25(1):116-23.

176 Current Concepts in Dental Implantology

Suppl:55-77.

pp. 38-67.

al Research. 2013;25(1):46-53.

Endodontology. 2009;107(4):559-65.

tal Care. 2010;17(4):161-7.

## **Role of Implants in Maxillofacial Prosthodontic Rehabilitation**

Derek D'Souza

[30] Bidra AS. Flapless implant surgery to overcome anatomic challenges in the anterior mandible for overdenture therapy: a clinical report. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentist‐

[31] Oh TJ, Shotwell J, Billy E, Byun HY, Wang HL. Flapless implant surgery in the es‐ thetic region: advantages and precautions. The International Journal of Periodontics

[32] D'haese J, Van De Velde T, Elaut L, De Bruyn H. A prospective study on the accuracy of mucosally supported stereolithographic surgical guides in fully edentulous maxil‐

[33] Nikzad S, Azari A, Ghassemzadeh A. Modified flapless dental implant surgery for planning treatment in a maxilla including sinus lift augmentation through use of vir‐ tual surgical planning and a 3-dimensional model. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial

[34] Cassetta M, Stefanelli LV, Giansanti M, Di Mambro A, Calasso S. Depth deviation and occurrence of early surgical complications or unexpected events using a single stereolithographic surgi-guide. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Sur‐

[35] D'haese J, Van De Velde T, Komiyama A, Hultin M, De Bruyn H. Accuracy and com‐ plications using computer-designed stereolithographic surgical guides for oral reha‐ bilitation by means of dental implants: a review of the literature. Clinical Implant

[36] Marchack CB. CAD/CAM-guided implant surgery and fabrication of an immediately loaded prosthesis for a partially edentulous patient. The Journal of Prosthetic Den‐

[37] Sarment DP, Sukovic P, Clinthorne N. Accuracy of implant placement with a stereo‐ lithographic surgical guide. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants.

lae. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research. 2012;14(2):293-303.

ry. 2014;111(3):175-80.

178 Current Concepts in Dental Implantology

Surgery. 2010;68(9):2291-8.

gery. 2011;40(12):1377-87.

tistry. 2007;97(6):389-94.

2003;18(4):571-7.

and Restorative Dentistry. 2007;27(1):27-33.

Dentistry and Related Research. 2012;14(3):321-35.

Additional information is available at the end of the chapter

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/59578

#### **1. Introduction**

Maxillofacial prostheses play a vital role in comprehensive rehabilitation by restoring physical and psychological well-being in patients with missing or disfigured anatomical structures due to congenital abnormalities, trauma, or disease [1]. It is possible to restore esthetics, function and re-establish the self confidence of the patient by providing a well designed prosthesis such as a prosthetic ear, eye, nose, cranial plate or a combination of these.

The last few decades have witnessed a significant increase in extensive malignancies of the head and neck region [2]. This has resulted in increasing number of patients with exten‐ sive post-surgical defects. Many of them need to be suitably rehabilitated to minimize longterm physical, functional and psychological consequences and ensure early return to normal life. In addition, these patients could be more willing to accept large surgical resections, if counseled about prosthetic reconstruction, prior to definitive surgery. It is crucial that all such patients receive a pre-operative referral to a maxillofacial prosthodontist prior to surgery [3].

When these patients report to the maxillofacial prosthetic clinic they report with complex defects and their general health status is also compromised. Achieving adequate retention of the prosthesis, especially when the defect is extensive, is a big challenge and requires a multi-disciplinary approach. With the advent of predictable osseointegration, a new era dawned in the field of prosthodontic rehabilitation of the head and neck region. Cases that were earlier condemned as "hopeless" were suddenly given a new range of options and the chance to be comprehensively restored to form and function. This chapter discusses the role of implants in comprehensive maxillofacial rehabilitation.

© 2015 The Author(s). Licensee InTech. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and eproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

#### **2. Retention of maxillofacial prostheses**

Historically the means of achieving retention of facial prostheses has been primarily by use of medical adhesives or by means of anatomical or mechanical retention using various devices such as spectacles, springs, studs, clips or magnets [3]. An ideal adhesive should be one that provides firm functional retention under flexure or extension during speech, facial expres‐ sions, and moisture or perspiration contact, however such an adhesive is not yet available. Facial prostheses may additionally be retained by judicious use of anatomic tissue undercuts, thereby minimizing the displacement potential caused by other external forces. There is a potential for tissue irritation with use of this technique and due care and regular follow up is a must. Special care is warranted where tissues have been previously irradiated.

#### **2.1. Cellular level changes of osseointegration**

It is necessary to have a clear concept about the science of implantation and the healing of bone following a successful implant placement. Osseous healing along an implant follows a similar process to fracture healing but is subjective to the nature of the surface of the implant [4]. As soon as blood comes into contact with the surface of the implant, proteins adsorb to it, platelets get activated and bind to the adsorbed protein which results in the formation of a clot. This coagulum at the implant surface supports the deposition of proteins, releases inflammatory mediators and initiates new tissue formation. The release of numerous signaling molecules influence the migration of monocytes, neutrophils (both involved in inflammation), and mesenchymal cells (cells that can differentiate into osteoblasts) towards the implant surface [4]. Following the aggregation of neutrophils and macrophages from nearby capillary beds to the implant site there is further release of inflammatory mediators which are necessary for the initiation of osteogenesis. Components of tissue growth factor β (TGF-β) super-family are also expressed within 24 hours of implantation, including bone morphogenetic proteins (BMPs) and growth & differentiation factors (GDFs). These signaling molecules result in the collection, migration, and differentiation of mesenchymal cells, which take part in the formation of woven bone. Woven bone subsequently undergoes a sequence of remodeling, resulting in the formation of mature bone which is the desired end result [5].

#### **2.2. Implant surface modifications**

Various surface modifications are being commercially marketed since the days of the first Brånemark implants [6]. Grit-blasting and acid etching still remain the most commonly employed surface modification techniques in use today. Sand blasting increases the surface area of the implant as compared to machined surfaces. The resultant increase in surface area has been shown to improve cell attachment and proliferation which results in increased implant stability [7 – 10]. Electrochemical anodization is another chemical surface modification method that has been employed. This process increases surface micro-texture and also modifies the chemistry of the implant coating resulting in a titanium oxide layer that is several orders of magnitude thicker than a passivated surface [11, 12]. The addition of a ceramic coating to the roughened surface is another method of improving osseoconductivity. Here a plasma collection, migration, and differentiation of mesenchymal cells, which take part in the formation of woven bone. Woven bone subsequently undergoes a sequence of remodeling, resulting in the formation of mature bone which is the desired

blasting and acid etching still remain the most commonly employed surface modification techniques in use today. Sand

sprayed hydroxyapatite (HA) coating is used to create an irregular surface for osseointegra‐ tion. The process involves blasting the implant surface with HA particles at a high temperature. The result is a coating that develops cracks as it rapidly cools. These coatings show enhanced bone-to-implant contact initially, in vivo, however the mechanical properties of the bonecoating interface has exhibited non-uniform degradation in the long term [13-16]. blasting increases the surface area of the implant as compared to machined surfaces. The resultant increase in surface area has been shown to improve cell attachment and proliferation which results in increased implant stability [7 – 10]. Electrochemical anodization is another chemical surface modification method that has been employed. This process increases surface micro‐texture and also modifies the chemistry of the implant coating resulting in a titanium oxide layer that is several orders of magnitude thicker than a passivated surface [11, 12]. The addition of a ceramic coating to the roughened surface is another method of improving osseoconductivity. Here a plasma sprayed hydroxyapatite (HA)

In other alternatives, crystalline deposition of nano-sized calcium phosphate and addition of a fluoride treatment to roughened titanium surfaces have also been tried with varying success [17-19]. While several advances in surface modification have been made in order to improve implant osseointegration, no treatment addresses the issue of reducing infection. While some manufacturers claim to be bacteria-proof due to their tight interlocking, the implant itself does not prevent bacterial attachment which can lead to formation of biofilms and subsequent implant failure [20, 21]. coating is used to create an irregular surface for osseointegration. The process involves blasting the implant surface with HA particles at a high temperature. The result is a coating that develops cracks as it rapidly cools. These coatings show enhanced bone‐to‐implant contact initially, in vivo, however the mechanical properties of the bone‐coating interface has exhibited non‐uniform degradation in the long term [13 ‐ 16]. In other alternatives, crystalline deposition of nano‐sized calcium phosphate and addition of a fluoride treatment to roughened titanium surfaces have also been tried with varying success [17 ‐ 19]. While several advances in surface modification have been made in order to improve implant osseointegration, no treatment addresses the issue of reducing

#### **2.3. Craniofacial implants** infection. While some manufacturers claim to be bacteria‐proof due to their tight interlocking, the implant itself does not prevent bacterial attachment which can lead to formation of biofilms and subsequent implant failure [20, 21].

end result [5].

**4. Implant surface modifications**

**2. Retention of maxillofacial prostheses**

180 Current Concepts in Dental Implantology

**2.1. Cellular level changes of osseointegration**

formation of mature bone which is the desired end result [5].

**2.2. Implant surface modifications**

Historically the means of achieving retention of facial prostheses has been primarily by use of medical adhesives or by means of anatomical or mechanical retention using various devices such as spectacles, springs, studs, clips or magnets [3]. An ideal adhesive should be one that provides firm functional retention under flexure or extension during speech, facial expres‐ sions, and moisture or perspiration contact, however such an adhesive is not yet available. Facial prostheses may additionally be retained by judicious use of anatomic tissue undercuts, thereby minimizing the displacement potential caused by other external forces. There is a potential for tissue irritation with use of this technique and due care and regular follow up is

It is necessary to have a clear concept about the science of implantation and the healing of bone following a successful implant placement. Osseous healing along an implant follows a similar process to fracture healing but is subjective to the nature of the surface of the implant [4]. As soon as blood comes into contact with the surface of the implant, proteins adsorb to it, platelets get activated and bind to the adsorbed protein which results in the formation of a clot. This coagulum at the implant surface supports the deposition of proteins, releases inflammatory mediators and initiates new tissue formation. The release of numerous signaling molecules influence the migration of monocytes, neutrophils (both involved in inflammation), and mesenchymal cells (cells that can differentiate into osteoblasts) towards the implant surface [4]. Following the aggregation of neutrophils and macrophages from nearby capillary beds to the implant site there is further release of inflammatory mediators which are necessary for the initiation of osteogenesis. Components of tissue growth factor β (TGF-β) super-family are also expressed within 24 hours of implantation, including bone morphogenetic proteins (BMPs) and growth & differentiation factors (GDFs). These signaling molecules result in the collection, migration, and differentiation of mesenchymal cells, which take part in the formation of woven bone. Woven bone subsequently undergoes a sequence of remodeling, resulting in the

Various surface modifications are being commercially marketed since the days of the first Brånemark implants [6]. Grit-blasting and acid etching still remain the most commonly employed surface modification techniques in use today. Sand blasting increases the surface area of the implant as compared to machined surfaces. The resultant increase in surface area has been shown to improve cell attachment and proliferation which results in increased implant stability [7 – 10]. Electrochemical anodization is another chemical surface modification method that has been employed. This process increases surface micro-texture and also modifies the chemistry of the implant coating resulting in a titanium oxide layer that is several orders of magnitude thicker than a passivated surface [11, 12]. The addition of a ceramic coating to the roughened surface is another method of improving osseoconductivity. Here a plasma

a must. Special care is warranted where tissues have been previously irradiated.

In order to obtain predictable craniofacial osseointegration, different protocols had to be developed. It was necessary to have certain modifications as compared to the oral implants. These implants were made from titanium alloys and were generally shorter i.e. 3 – 5 mm long, threaded and with the same machined surface as the oral implants. It was further found important to attach a flange in the coronal part of the fixture [Figure 1]. The reason for this was the idea that even if the implant was subjected to a longitudinally directed trauma, the flange would prevent it to from being pushed into the deeper structures. This has also proved to be a safe and secure measure, as several trauma cases have occurred, but only a minority have caused fractures of the skull bone, and none have caused severe damage [22]. **5. Craniofacial implants** In order to obtain predictable craniofacial osseointegration different protocols had to be developed. It was necessary to have certain modifications as compared to the oral implants. These implants were made from titanium alloys and were generally shorter i.e. 3 – 5 mm long, threaded and with the same machined surface as the oral implants. It was further found important to attach a flange in the coronal part of the fixture [Figure1]. The reason for this was the idea that even if the implant was subjected to a longitudinally directed trauma, the flange would prevent it to from being pushed into the deeper structures. This has also proved to be a safe and secure measure, as several trauma cases have occurred, but only a minority have caused fractures of the skull bone, and none have caused severe damage [22].

**Figure 1.** Design of craniofacial implants

different types were developed. These include abutments for the bone‐anchored hearing aid (BAHA) and abutments for bone‐anchored epistheses (BAE). The length of the fixtures to be used is determined by the thickness of the cranial bones. In a normal adult the temporal bone has a thickness of approximately 4 mm. This is also the length of the most commonly available implants. It may be possible to install longer fixtures in the frontal bone, zygoma and maxilla. The The first abutment that was originally used was also of an intraoral type, but with time, extraoral abutments of different types were developed. These include abutments for the boneanchored hearing aid (BAHA) and abutments for bone-anchored epistheses (BAE). The length of the fixtures to be used is determined by the thickness of the cranial bones. In a normal adult

Fig 1 Design of craniofacial implants The first abutment that was originally used was also of an intraoral type, but with time, extra‐oral abutments of

skin over the abutments has to be reduced to a minimum. This is to prevent constant discomfort or trauma experienced

the temporal bone has a thickness of approximately 4 mm. This is also the length of the most commonly available implants. It may be possible to install longer fixtures in the frontal bone, zygoma and maxilla. The skin over the abutments has to be reduced to a minimum. This is to prevent constant discomfort or trauma experienced by the patient when the prosthesis will move. Patients who have split skin grafts around the implant abutment show the least skin penetration problems [22, 23].

In pediatric cases the skull bone is much thinner, sometimes barely 1–3 mm thick. In these cases a different approach is necessitated. A simple technique is by the utilization of a semipermeable membrane at the first stage surgery [24]. By utilizing this technique, 1–2 mm bone can be gained during a 6-month healing period, thus making it possible to install a 4-mm long fixture also in children. The semi-permeable membrane is then removed at the second stage surgery.

Osseointegration in irradiated bone was early believed to be contraindicated. Patients who are recovering from various forms of cancer need comprehensive rehabilitation and can benefit a lot from the use of osseointegrated implants. Clinically though there were higher failure rates along with certain other problems such as dehiscence of the soft tissue as well as osteoradio‐ necrosis [25]. Taking into consideration that the irradiated bone will take longer to heal it is advisable to first delay the placement of the implant and also to allow 4 to 8 months for osseointegration. Another approach is to expose the patients to adjunctive hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBO). HBO has been shown to accelerate healing and also prevent osteoradionecrosis [26, 27]. In 2013, de Oliveira, Abrahão and Dib [28] however found that there is no difference in implant success between irradiated and normal bone. Keeping all things constant and knowing the risk factors involved it seems to be better to ensure all precautions are maintained in case selection, implant placement and also to ensure that the patient receives HBO therapy to reduce failures in patients who have received some form of radiotherapy and/or chemo‐ therapy.

#### **2.4. Factors of importance for predictable osseointegration**

There are six factors of importance that must be carefully monitored to ensure predictable osseointegration [29-31].

*Material of the fixture*-Titanium alloys are the most commonly used as these are known to integrate in the bone without causing adverse effects. It can remain incorporated into the bone for many decades, and be used as anchorage for different prostheses.

*Macrostructure of the implant*-A screw-shaped implant ensures better primary stability as compared to a conical shaped implant. This may be due to micro-movements of the conical shape and reduced osseointegration.

*Microstructure of the implant*-Original Brånemark implants had a smooth surface as they were manufactured by machining. Clinically however it has been observed that very smooth surfaces have lesser degree of osseointegration, along with minor amount of resorption. On the other hand a highly roughened surface shows rapid integration; but later secondary inflammation and secondary resorption is noticed that can endanger the long-term survival of the implant.

*Osseous bed into which the implant is placed*-Geriatric patients with bone that is osteoporotic will show lesser degree of osseointegration. Similar is the case of patients who have had radio‐ therapy or who have sustained severe burns that alter the osseous quality and reduce its capacity for osseointegration.

*Surgical technique* – The surgical intervention should be carefully monitored with slow speed, high torque and copious irrigation with cold water. The temperature should never be allowed to rise as the osteoblasts are extremely heat labile and get damaged easily. The implant itself should never be touched by gloves or gauze. It is vital that the surgical bed be free from fibers, powder and any other foreign matter that might hinder osseointegration.

*Loading the implant* – The implant should be loaded along its long axis as far as feasible. Lateral, torsional or cantilever forces are least tolerated and should be minimized by efficient planning and design.

#### **2.5. Retention of maxillofacial prostheses and craniofacial implants**

the temporal bone has a thickness of approximately 4 mm. This is also the length of the most commonly available implants. It may be possible to install longer fixtures in the frontal bone, zygoma and maxilla. The skin over the abutments has to be reduced to a minimum. This is to prevent constant discomfort or trauma experienced by the patient when the prosthesis will move. Patients who have split skin grafts around the implant abutment show the least skin

In pediatric cases the skull bone is much thinner, sometimes barely 1–3 mm thick. In these cases a different approach is necessitated. A simple technique is by the utilization of a semipermeable membrane at the first stage surgery [24]. By utilizing this technique, 1–2 mm bone can be gained during a 6-month healing period, thus making it possible to install a 4-mm long fixture also in children. The semi-permeable membrane is then removed at the second stage

Osseointegration in irradiated bone was early believed to be contraindicated. Patients who are recovering from various forms of cancer need comprehensive rehabilitation and can benefit a lot from the use of osseointegrated implants. Clinically though there were higher failure rates along with certain other problems such as dehiscence of the soft tissue as well as osteoradio‐ necrosis [25]. Taking into consideration that the irradiated bone will take longer to heal it is advisable to first delay the placement of the implant and also to allow 4 to 8 months for osseointegration. Another approach is to expose the patients to adjunctive hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBO). HBO has been shown to accelerate healing and also prevent osteoradionecrosis [26, 27]. In 2013, de Oliveira, Abrahão and Dib [28] however found that there is no difference in implant success between irradiated and normal bone. Keeping all things constant and knowing the risk factors involved it seems to be better to ensure all precautions are maintained in case selection, implant placement and also to ensure that the patient receives HBO therapy to reduce failures in patients who have received some form of radiotherapy and/or chemo‐

There are six factors of importance that must be carefully monitored to ensure predictable

*Material of the fixture*-Titanium alloys are the most commonly used as these are known to integrate in the bone without causing adverse effects. It can remain incorporated into the bone

*Macrostructure of the implant*-A screw-shaped implant ensures better primary stability as compared to a conical shaped implant. This may be due to micro-movements of the conical

*Microstructure of the implant*-Original Brånemark implants had a smooth surface as they were manufactured by machining. Clinically however it has been observed that very smooth surfaces have lesser degree of osseointegration, along with minor amount of resorption. On the other hand a highly roughened surface shows rapid integration; but later secondary

**2.4. Factors of importance for predictable osseointegration**

for many decades, and be used as anchorage for different prostheses.

penetration problems [22, 23].

182 Current Concepts in Dental Implantology

surgery.

therapy.

osseointegration [29-31].

shape and reduced osseointegration.

With the increased use of osseointegrated implants, dependence on adhesive and anatomic methods of retention has diminished. Magnets or clips can be used to effectively retain the prostheses [Figure 2] and will also minimize force transfer to the implant and supporting bone. The resultant decrease in dependence on chemical (adhesives) and anatomic (tissue undercuts) retention is beneficial to both the patient and the prosthodontist [31 – 35].

situations or with acquired defects from accidents. Other designs may also be provided if the distance between the two implants is too close or too far apart. Other crucial factors in rehabilitating this type of defect are marginal fit, good retention, and acceptable esthetics. Various studies have shown that retention using craniofacial implants has improved the satisfaction of patients with craniofacial prostheses. However, the actual level of satisfaction depends, to a large

In order to address the area of rehabilitation of the orbit it is vital to understand the different types of surgical techniques used in ophthalmic surgeries. Evisceration, enucleation, and exenteration are the three main surgical techniques by which all or parts of the orbital contents are removed [39]. Evisceration is the removal of the contents of the globe while leaving the sclera and extra‐ocular muscles intact. Enucleation is the removal of the eye from the orbit while preserving all other orbital structures. Exenteration is the most radical of the three procedures and involves

Evisceration is usually indicated in cases of endophthalmitis unresponsive to antibiotics and for improvement of esthetics in an eye that is damaged and has lost its vision. Enucleation is indicated for the above two conditions as well as for painful eyes with no useful vision, malignant intraocular tumors, in ocular trauma to avoid sympathetic ophthalmia in the second eye, in phthisis with degeneration, and in congenital anophthalmia or severe microphthalmia to enhance development of the bony orbit. Exenteration is indicated mainly for large orbital tumors or orbital extension

The first two namely evisceration and enucleation can be easily rehabilitated with excellent cosmetic results using custom made ocular prostheses [1, 3]. These are fabricated after custom made impressions using silicone impression materials and can be retained fairly well if the eyelids and ocular muscles are intact [Figure 3 – 5]. If required

Figure 2 Different retention options for attachment of craniofacial prostheses Craniofacial implants require adequate osseous thickness of the bone on the temporal and mastoid regions, for example in the rehabilitation of a case of congenital microtia. Thus, implant placement may not be as ideal in normal **Figure 2.** Different retention options for attachment of craniofacial prostheses

removal of the eye, adnexa, and part of the bony orbit.

**Orbital prosthesis**

of intraocular tumors [39].

extent, on the location or type of defect, sex, and age of the patient [36 – 38].

Craniofacial implants require adequate osseous thickness of the bone on the temporal and mastoid regions, for example in the rehabilitation of a case of congenital microtia. Thus, implant placement may not be as ideal in normal situations or with acquired defects from accidents. Other designs may also be provided if the distance between the two implants is too close or too far apart. Other crucial factors in rehabilitating this type of defect are marginal fit, good retention, and acceptable esthetics. Various studies have shown that retention using craniofacial implants has improved the satisfaction of patients with craniofacial prostheses. However, the actual level of satisfaction depends, to a large extent, on the location or type of defect, sex, and age of the patient [36 – 38].

### **3. Orbital prosthesis**

In order to address the area of rehabilitation of the orbit it is vital to understand the different types of surgical techniques used in ophthalmic surgeries. Evisceration, enucleation, and exenteration are the three main surgical techniques by which all or parts of the orbital contents are removed [39]. Evisceration is the removal of the contents of the globe while leaving the sclera and extra-ocular muscles intact. Enucleation is the removal of the eye from the orbit while preserving all other orbital structures. Exenteration is the most radical of the three procedures and involves removal of the eye, adnexa, and part of the bony orbit.

Evisceration is usually indicated in cases of endophthalmitis unresponsive to antibiotics and for improvement of esthetics in an eye that is damaged and has lost its vision. Enucleation is indicated for the above two conditions as well as for painful eyes with no useful vision, malignant intraocular tumors, in ocular trauma to avoid sympathetic ophthalmia in the second eye, in phthisis with degeneration, and in congenital anophthalmia or severe microphthalmia to enhance development of the bony orbit. Exenteration is indicated mainly for large orbital tumors or orbital extension of intraocular tumors [39].

The first two namely evisceration and enucleation can be easily rehabilitated with excellent cosmetic results using custom made ocular prostheses [1, 3]. These are fabricated after custom made impressions using silicone impression materials and can be retained fairly well if the eyelids and ocular muscles are intact [Figure 3 – 5]. If required then additional soft tissue components may be fabricated using silicone elastomers which can be shaded and colour matched to the skin of the subject. They may be retained with suitable eye-frames or by use of local undercuts and adhesives [1, 3].

Exenteration surgical procedures are far more extensive and need expert and multi-specialty approach for rehabilitation. Post operatively when the patient reports for rehabilitation it may be necessary to advise the patient to undergo an additional surgical procedure to deepen the existing socket or for thinning of the skin flaps used for the initial wound closure. This will ensure better cosmetic outcome as there will be adequate space to accommodate the retentive framework, ocular component as well as the bulk of silicone elastomer. These large prostheses do not function well with adhesives or eye glasses alone [Figure 6 – 8]. Application of implants in these large orbital defects reduces the need for adhesives and enables easy insertion and

**Figure 3.** Ocular Defect Left eye

Craniofacial implants require adequate osseous thickness of the bone on the temporal and mastoid regions, for example in the rehabilitation of a case of congenital microtia. Thus, implant placement may not be as ideal in normal situations or with acquired defects from accidents. Other designs may also be provided if the distance between the two implants is too close or too far apart. Other crucial factors in rehabilitating this type of defect are marginal fit, good retention, and acceptable esthetics. Various studies have shown that retention using craniofacial implants has improved the satisfaction of patients with craniofacial prostheses. However, the actual level of satisfaction depends, to a large extent, on the location or type of

In order to address the area of rehabilitation of the orbit it is vital to understand the different types of surgical techniques used in ophthalmic surgeries. Evisceration, enucleation, and exenteration are the three main surgical techniques by which all or parts of the orbital contents are removed [39]. Evisceration is the removal of the contents of the globe while leaving the sclera and extra-ocular muscles intact. Enucleation is the removal of the eye from the orbit while preserving all other orbital structures. Exenteration is the most radical of the three

Evisceration is usually indicated in cases of endophthalmitis unresponsive to antibiotics and for improvement of esthetics in an eye that is damaged and has lost its vision. Enucleation is indicated for the above two conditions as well as for painful eyes with no useful vision, malignant intraocular tumors, in ocular trauma to avoid sympathetic ophthalmia in the second eye, in phthisis with degeneration, and in congenital anophthalmia or severe microphthalmia to enhance development of the bony orbit. Exenteration is indicated mainly for large orbital

The first two namely evisceration and enucleation can be easily rehabilitated with excellent cosmetic results using custom made ocular prostheses [1, 3]. These are fabricated after custom made impressions using silicone impression materials and can be retained fairly well if the eyelids and ocular muscles are intact [Figure 3 – 5]. If required then additional soft tissue components may be fabricated using silicone elastomers which can be shaded and colour matched to the skin of the subject. They may be retained with suitable eye-frames or by use of

Exenteration surgical procedures are far more extensive and need expert and multi-specialty approach for rehabilitation. Post operatively when the patient reports for rehabilitation it may be necessary to advise the patient to undergo an additional surgical procedure to deepen the existing socket or for thinning of the skin flaps used for the initial wound closure. This will ensure better cosmetic outcome as there will be adequate space to accommodate the retentive framework, ocular component as well as the bulk of silicone elastomer. These large prostheses do not function well with adhesives or eye glasses alone [Figure 6 – 8]. Application of implants in these large orbital defects reduces the need for adhesives and enables easy insertion and

procedures and involves removal of the eye, adnexa, and part of the bony orbit.

defect, sex, and age of the patient [36 – 38].

tumors or orbital extension of intraocular tumors [39].

local undercuts and adhesives [1, 3].

**3. Orbital prosthesis**

184 Current Concepts in Dental Implantology

**Figure 4.** Custom-made ocular prosthesis

**Figure 5.** Customised orbital prosthesis *in situ*

removal of the prosthesis. Patients can easily remove the prosthesis when not in use and also replace it quickly and effortlessly [39 – 41].

The ideal locations where craniofacial implants may be placed are the supero-lateral rim and the infero-lateral rim. The implants are placed in such a manner that they project into the defect space. The advantage of this is that the boundaries of the prosthesis can conceal the retentive mechanism effectively. It is advisable to place at least three implants both in the upper and the lower orbital rims. This ensures adequate retention even if one or more implants fail. In case the patient has received irradiation as part of the onco-therapeutic process they need to be advised hyperbaric oxygen therapy as described earlier [25 – 27]. The bony architecture in this region is mostly cortical and therefore shorter implants may be are used. It is advisable to wait for 6-8 months for complete osseointegration before the implants are uncovered. The eye prostheses gain maximum retention by use of Neodymium magnets housed in a carrier superstructure within the orbit. Due to the natural shape of the orbit being oval, the abutments, once placed on the implants, will converge toward the center of the orbit. It is therefore important to allow for adequate space of at least 1cm apart between the implants during the surgical phase so that the abutments do not contact thereby interfering with the superstructure.

**Figure 6.** Post-exenteration orbital defect

**Figure 7.** Custom-made orbital prosthesis

**Figure 8.** Orbital prosthesis retained with spectacles

After the abutments are attached the fabrication of the prosthesis may be carried out by the maxillofacial prosthodontic team. The margins of the prosthesis may be thinned to ensure better esthetic outcome. Simple frames may also be used so that the borders are concealed [Figure 8]. Patients need to be kept on regular follow-up protocol for any changes in the implants, skin or colour changes in the prosthesis itself [39, 41].

#### **4. Nasal prosthesis**

The ideal locations where craniofacial implants may be placed are the supero-lateral rim and the infero-lateral rim. The implants are placed in such a manner that they project into the defect space. The advantage of this is that the boundaries of the prosthesis can conceal the retentive mechanism effectively. It is advisable to place at least three implants both in the upper and the lower orbital rims. This ensures adequate retention even if one or more implants fail. In case the patient has received irradiation as part of the onco-therapeutic process they need to be advised hyperbaric oxygen therapy as described earlier [25 – 27]. The bony architecture in this region is mostly cortical and therefore shorter implants may be are used. It is advisable to wait for 6-8 months for complete osseointegration before the implants are uncovered. The eye prostheses gain maximum retention by use of Neodymium magnets housed in a carrier superstructure within the orbit. Due to the natural shape of the orbit being oval, the abutments, once placed on the implants, will converge toward the center of the orbit. It is therefore important to allow for adequate space of at least 1cm apart between the implants during the surgical phase so that the abutments do not contact thereby interfering with the superstructure.

**Figure 6.** Post-exenteration orbital defect

186 Current Concepts in Dental Implantology

**Figure 7.** Custom-made orbital prosthesis

The nose and its adjacent structures play a vital role in facial esthetics. Unlike other facial structures it cannot be easily hidden or camouflaged and hence any person with a congenital or acquired defect looks for early rehabilitation. Small defects are best reconstructed by the plastic surgeon but when both bone and soft tissue have been lost as a result of malignancy related surgeries or due to severe mid-face trauma, then other alternatives are required [1, 42]. Retention using less invasive methods such as the use of tissue or bony undercuts or mechanical with spectacles has been tried with limited success. Even though it may be a challenge, the use of osseointegrated fixtures will ensure excellent retention and esthetic outcome. Ideally three implants need to be placed for adequate retention. It is recommended that a triangular placement around the residual nasal aperture be used. Two implants should be placed at the area of alar base in a vertical line drawn downward from the medial canthus of each eye. One additional implant is placed at the nasal bridge in the midline inferior to the frontal sinus to complete an isosceles triangle [Figure 9]. The implants at the alar base should project out at 90° to surface. The implant at the midline of the nasal bridge should project downward 30° or at the same angle as the nasal bones project from frontal bone [43].

Figure 9. Nasal defect with bar attachment on three implants **Figure 9.** Nasal defect with bar attachment on three implants

#### these prostheses has been their retention. Traditionally tissue undercuts, mechanical retention with springs, clips, **Figure 10.** Nasal prosthesis in situ

strong and can be dislodged by daily activities of life [47 – 50]. Figure 12 Bilateral auricular defect following severe burns distribution over all the three fixtures. In certain cases where there is complete or partial loss of the maxilla and associated midfacial structures, the nasal component may be magnetically connected to the intraoral obturator [Figure 11] thus providing mutual retention to each other [44 – 46]. The use of spectacles once again distracts the observer's vision from the borders between the skin and the prosthesis and ensures better esthetic outcome [1, 3]. The prosthetic superstructure is fabricated in silicone and retained with the help of clips or magnets [Figure 10] within the prosthesis that engage a metal bar connecting the implants [1, 3]. The connector framework ensures even force distribution over all the three fixtures. In certain cases where there is complete or partial loss of the maxilla and associated midfacial

strong and can be dislodged by daily activities of life [47 – 50].

**Auricular defects**

challenging and technically demanding. In contrast an esthetically pleasing and excellent shade matched auricular prosthesis may be fabricated from acrylic polymers or from silicone elastomers [Figure 12 – 15]. The main problem with

Figure 10 Nasal prosthesis in situ

The prosthetic superstructure is fabricated in silicone and retained with the help of clips or magnets [Figure 10]

hairpieces and adhesives have been used to hold them in place [3]. These have serious limitations as retention is not very

within the prosthesis that engage a metal bar connecting the implants [1, 3]. The connector framework ensures even force

Figure 13 Wax patterns of ear prosthesis

Figure 11 Nasal and maxillary obturator prosthesis connected with magnets

Figure 14 Finished and polished silicone ear prostheses

road traffic accidents, burns, acid attacks, or animal or human bites. Surgically they may be removed due to local malignancies. Plastic surgeons may attempt an autogenous reconstruction of the external ear but it is extremely challenging and technically demanding. In contrast an esthetically pleasing and excellent shade matched auricular prosthesis may be fabricated from acrylic polymers or from silicone elastomers [Figure 12 – 15]. The main problem with these prostheses has been their retention. Traditionally tissue undercuts, mechanical retention with springs, clips, hairpieces and adhesives have been used to hold them in place [3]. These have serious limitations as retention is not very

Figure 15 Bilateral auricular prosthesis (mechanically retained)

cases two or three implants placed external to the external auditory meatus in the temporo‐mastoid region are sufficient

Figure 12 Bilateral auricular defect following severe burns

Figure 13 Wax patterns of ear prosthesis

Figure 14 Finished and polished silicone ear prostheses

Figure 15 Bilateral auricular prosthesis (mechanically retained)

cases two or three implants placed external to the external auditory meatus in the temporo‐mastoid region are sufficient [Figure 16]. Implants placed to retain a prosthetic ear are limited in length by the thickness of the mastoid and temporal bones as well as the mastoid air cells. Positioning of implants in the temporal bone is critical to the overall esthetic result and so the use of a surgical guide is mandatory. In cases of microtia or where there are a malformed tissue tags it may be

beneficial to have them surgically removed prior to the start of the rehabilitation process [48, 51].

Once again osseointegrated implants have proven to be a boon and are presently the method of choice. In these

Once again osseointegrated implants have proven to be a boon and are presently the method of choice. In these

The auricle may be congenitally malformed as in microtia or may be disfigured as a result of trauma following

structures, the nasal component may be magnetically connected to the intraoral obturator [Figure 11] thus providing mutual retention to each other [44 – 46]. The use of spectacles once again distracts the observer's vision from the borders between the skin and the prosthesis and ensures better esthetic outcome [1, 3].

**Figure 11.** Nasal and maxillary obturator prosthesis connected with magnets

#### within the prosthesis that engage a metal bar connecting the implants [1, 3]. The connector framework ensures even force distribution over all the three fixtures. In certain cases where there is complete or partial loss of the maxilla and **5. Auricular defects**

frontal sinus to complete an isosceles triangle [Figure 9]. The implants at the alar base should project out at 90° to surface. The implant at the midline of the nasal bridge should project

Figure 9. Nasal defect with bar attachment on three implants

strong and can be dislodged by daily activities of life [47 – 50].

The prosthetic superstructure is fabricated in silicone and retained with the help of clips or magnets [Figure 10] within the prosthesis that engage a metal bar connecting the implants [1, 3]. The connector framework ensures even force distribution over all the three fixtures. In certain cases where there is complete or partial loss of the maxilla and associated midfacial

strong and can be dislodged by daily activities of life [47 – 50].

**Auricular defects**

**Auricular defects**

**Figure 9.** Nasal defect with bar attachment on three implants

188 Current Concepts in Dental Implantology

**Figure 10.** Nasal prosthesis in situ

Figure 10 Nasal prosthesis in situ The prosthetic superstructure is fabricated in silicone and retained with the help of clips or magnets [Figure 10]

associated midfacial structures, the nasal component may be magnetically connected to the intraoral obturator [Figure

Figure 11 Nasal and maxillary obturator prosthesis connected with magnets

Figure 10 Nasal prosthesis in situ

Figure 12 Bilateral auricular defect following severe burns

vision from the borders between the skin and the prosthesis and ensures better esthetic outcome [1, 3].

Figure 13 Wax patterns of ear prosthesis

Figure 11 Nasal and maxillary obturator prosthesis connected with magnets

Figure 14 Finished and polished silicone ear prostheses

road traffic accidents, burns, acid attacks, or animal or human bites. Surgically they may be removed due to local malignancies. Plastic surgeons may attempt an autogenous reconstruction of the external ear but it is extremely challenging and technically demanding. In contrast an esthetically pleasing and excellent shade matched auricular prosthesis may be fabricated from acrylic polymers or from silicone elastomers [Figure 12 – 15]. The main problem with these prostheses has been their retention. Traditionally tissue undercuts, mechanical retention with springs, clips, hairpieces and adhesives have been used to hold them in place [3]. These have serious limitations as retention is not very

Figure 15 Bilateral auricular prosthesis (mechanically retained)

cases two or three implants placed external to the external auditory meatus in the temporo‐mastoid region are sufficient

Figure 12 Bilateral auricular defect following severe burns

Figure 13 Wax patterns of ear prosthesis

Figure 14 Finished and polished silicone ear prostheses

Figure 15 Bilateral auricular prosthesis (mechanically retained)

cases two or three implants placed external to the external auditory meatus in the temporo‐mastoid region are sufficient [Figure 16]. Implants placed to retain a prosthetic ear are limited in length by the thickness of the mastoid and temporal bones as well as the mastoid air cells. Positioning of implants in the temporal bone is critical to the overall esthetic result and so the use of a surgical guide is mandatory. In cases of microtia or where there are a malformed tissue tags it may be

beneficial to have them surgically removed prior to the start of the rehabilitation process [48, 51].

Once again osseointegrated implants have proven to be a boon and are presently the method of choice. In these

Once again osseointegrated implants have proven to be a boon and are presently the method of choice. In these

The auricle may be congenitally malformed as in microtia or may be disfigured as a result of trauma following

vision from the borders between the skin and the prosthesis and ensures better esthetic outcome [1, 3].

downward 30° or at the same angle as the nasal bones project from frontal bone [43].

11] thus providing mutual retention to each other [44 – 46]. The use of spectacles once again distracts the observer's The auricle may be congenitally malformed as in microtia or may be disfigured as a result of trauma following road traffic accidents, burns, acid attacks, or animal or human bites. Surgically they may be removed due to local malignancies. Plastic surgeons may attempt an autogenous reconstruction of the external ear but it is extremely challenging and technically demanding. In contrast an esthetically pleasing and excellent shade matched auricular prosthesis may be fabricated from acrylic polymers or from silicone elastomers [Figure 12 – 15]. The main problem with The auricle may be congenitally malformed as in microtia or may be disfigured as a result of trauma following road traffic accidents, burns, acid attacks, or animal or human bites. Surgically they may be removed due to local malignancies. Plastic surgeons may attempt an autogenous reconstruction of the external ear but it is extremely challenging and technically demanding. In contrast an esthetically pleasing and excellent shade matched auricular prosthesis may be fabricated from acrylic polymers or from silicone elastomers [Figure 12 – 15]. The main problem with these prostheses has been their retention. Traditionally tissue undercuts, mechanical retention with springs, clips, hairpieces and adhesives have been used to hold them in place [3]. These have serious limitations as retention is not very strong and can be dislodged by daily activities of life [47 – 50].

these prostheses has been their retention. Traditionally tissue undercuts, mechanical retention with springs, clips, hairpieces and adhesives have been used to hold them in place [3]. These have serious limitations as retention is not very The prosthetic superstructure is fabricated in silicone and retained with the help of clips or magnets [Figure 10] within the prosthesis that engage a metal bar connecting the implants [1, 3]. The connector framework ensures even force distribution over all the three fixtures. In certain cases where there is complete or partial loss of the maxilla and associated midfacial structures, the nasal component may be magnetically connected to the intraoral obturator [Figure 11] thus providing mutual retention to each other [44 – 46]. The use of spectacles once again distracts the observer's Once again osseointegrated implants have proven to be a boon and are presently the method of choice. In these cases two or three implants placed external to the external auditory meatus in the temporo-mastoid region are sufficient [Figure 16]. Implants placed to retain a prosthetic ear are limited in length by the thickness of the mastoid and temporal bones as well as the mastoid air cells. Positioning of implants in the temporal bone is critical to the overall esthetic result and so the use of a surgical guide is mandatory. In cases of microtia or where there are

**Figure 12.** Bilateral auricular defect following severe burns

a malformed tissue tags it may be beneficial to have them surgically removed prior to the start of the rehabilitation process [48, 51]. Figure 13 Wax patterns of ear prosthesis

Figure 12 Bilateral auricular defect following severe burns

Figure 14 Finished and polished silicone ear prostheses

The maxillofacial prosthodontist should fabricate a diagnostic wax-up of the proposed prosthesis replicating the anatomic features of contra-lateral ear and properly positioned to provide facial symmetry [51]. Using the wax pattern a surgical guide is then replicated with acrylic resin or vinyl acetate. The guide should indicate the most optimal location for implant placement. The implants are usually related to the anti helix of the external ear. In this position maintenance is a must and should be ensured at follow‐up [51 – 54].

prostheses. The advantage of having long hair to hide the margins is and added advantage. Cleanliness and proper

Figure 14 Finished and polished silicone ear prostheses **Figure 14.** Finished and polished silicone ear prostheses

Figure 14. Finished and polished silicone ear prostheses

Figure 13. Wax patterns of ear prosthesis

a malformed tissue tags it may be beneficial to have them surgically removed prior to the start

beneficial to have them surgically removed prior to the start of the rehabilitation process [48, 51].

Figure 12 Bilateral auricular defect following severe burns

Figure 13 Wax patterns of ear prosthesis

Figure 14 Finished and polished silicone ear prostheses

Figure 15 Bilateral auricular prosthesis (mechanically retained) Once again osseointegrated implants have proven to be a boon and are presently the method of choice. In these cases two or three implants placed external to the external auditory meatus in the temporo‐mastoid region are sufficient [Figure 16]. Implants placed to retain a prosthetic ear are limited in length by the thickness of the mastoid and temporal bones as well as the mastoid air cells. Positioning of implants in the temporal bone is critical to the overall esthetic result and so the use of a surgical guide is mandatory. In cases of microtia or where there are a malformed tissue tags it may be

Figure 16 Craniofacial implants placed for ear prosthesis

Figure 17 Bar retainer connected to the abutments

Figure 18 Implant retained ear prosthesis in situ The maxillofacial prosthodontist should fabricate a diagnostic wax‐up of the proposed prosthesis replicating the anatomic features of contra‐lateral ear and properly positioned to provide facial symmetry [51]. Using the wax pattern a surgical guide is then replicated with acrylic resin or vinyl acetate. The guide should indicate the most optimal location for implant placement. The implants are usually related to the anti helix of the external ear. In this position the exposed implants and the retention system have the best opportunity to be hidden from view. Two retention systems using either metal bars of 2 mm diameter soldered to metallic cylinders or retention clips may be used separately or in combination [Figure 17, 18]. The fabrication steps of the silicone prosthesis follow the routine steps as for other external prostheses. The advantage of having long hair to hide the margins is and added advantage. Cleanliness and proper

The maxillofacial prosthodontist should fabricate a diagnostic wax-up of the proposed prosthesis replicating the anatomic features of contra-lateral ear and properly positioned to provide facial symmetry [51]. Using the wax pattern a surgical guide is then replicated with acrylic resin or vinyl acetate. The guide should indicate the most optimal location for implant placement. The implants are usually related to the anti helix of the external ear. In this position

maintenance is a must and should be ensured at follow‐up [51 – 54].

of the rehabilitation process [48, 51].

190 Current Concepts in Dental Implantology

**Figure 12.** Bilateral auricular defect following severe burns

**Figure 13.** Wax patterns of ear prosthesis

Figure 15 Bilateral auricular prosthesis (mechanically retained) Once again osseointegrated implants have proven to be a boon and are presently the method of choice. In these **Figure 15.** Bilateral auricular prosthesis (mechanically retained)

the exposed implants and the retention system have the best opportunity to be hidden from view. Two retention systems using either metal bars of 2 mm diameter soldered to metallic cylinders or retention clips may be used separately or in combination [Figure 17, 18]. The fabrication steps of the silicone prosthesis follow the routine steps as for other external prostheses. The advantage of having long hair to hide the margins is an added advantage. Cleanliness and proper maintenance is a must and should be ensured at follow-up [51 – 54]. [Figure 16]. Implants placed to retain a prosthetic ear are limited in length by the thickness of the mastoid and temporal bones as well as the mastoid air cells. Positioning of implants in the temporal bone is critical to the overall esthetic result and so the use of a surgical guide is mandatory. In cases of microtia or where there are a malformed tissue tags it may be beneficial to have them surgically removed prior to the start of the rehabilitation process [48, 51].

cases two or three implants placed external to the external auditory meatus in the temporo‐mastoid region are sufficient

**Figure 16.** Craniofacial implants placed for ear prosthesis

**Figure 17.** Bar retainer connected to the abutments

**Figure 18.** Implant retained ear prosthesis in situ

#### **6. Management of the dentate maxillectomy patient**

The dental health status of the patient is the first consideration when planning for prosthetic implantation. Preservation of all possible teeth and vigorous dental hygiene are important in the preoperative period to reduce problems in the postoperative period, when cleaning will be difficult if not impossible. The decision to remove maxillary teeth may come into question if the patient may receive pre and post-operative radiation. It is felt by most prosthodontists that the potential risk of osteoradionecrosis resulting from dental treatment in the maxilla is minimal. Each tooth that can be saved has tremendous potential value as an abutment for the obturator prosthesis. Therefore, all teeth should be retained except those that are grossly carious and cannot be restored by any means [55]. In addition to assessment and preservation of teeth, it important to obtain maxillary and mandibular casts in the pre-operative period. Two maxillary casts should be obtained; one to be used as a permanent record, and the other for reproduction of the anticipated surgical defect to be used as a guide for fabrication of the prosthesis. One copy of the pre-operative cast should be kept at all times and further dupli‐ cation done if so required.

Various designs of intra-oral prostheses are possible keeping in mind the principles as applicable for removable cast framework partial dentures. Where required other forms of additional retention are possible using the myriad commercially available intra-coronal or extra-coronal precision attachments. These should suffice to provide a prosthesis that is functionally stable and acceptable to the patient [55 – 58].

#### **6.1. Obturators**

**Figure 16.** Craniofacial implants placed for ear prosthesis

192 Current Concepts in Dental Implantology

**Figure 17.** Bar retainer connected to the abutments

**Figure 18.** Implant retained ear prosthesis in situ

Various types and designs of obturators may be planned. Based on the time of placement they can be classified as: surgical, interim and definitive. Surgical obturators are those that are placed immediately after surgery. Although there has been some disagreement about the value of surgical obturators, they do offer distinct advantages for the surgeon and the patient.

Design of the surgical obturator is a challenge, and involves communication between the surgeon and the prosthodontist. The preoperative plan should be discussed, and actual anticipated defects should be clearly marked on the preoperative cast. Areas that will definitively be resected should be outlined, as well as areas that may be involved. The type of retention method that the surgeon prefers should be communicated prior to surgery [56, 59]. Retention holes in the acrylic plate should be created on the defect side so that the edges can be sutured immediately after surgery to the cheek to support the surgical pack *in situ* [Figure 19, 20].

Interim obturators are those prostheses which are placed immediately after removal of the surgical packing and should be used until tissue contracture is minimal [Figure 21 – 24]. Time between removal of the pack and obturator placement should be minimal, as tissue contraction and edema will quickly alter the shape of the defect, making it difficult to insert an obturator. For this reason, it is important to have a post-surgical obturator made prior to removal of packing. It is also important that the prosthodontist be present with the surgeon when packing is removed so the prosthesis can be inserted immediately after inspection of the surgical site by the surgeon [59].

The definitive obturator is designed when the surgical defect has stabilized, approximately 3 to 12 months after definitive surgery [Figure 25]. The bulb portion that extends into the defect area must be kept hollow in order to lessen the weight of the prosthesis [Figure 26]. The design of the prosthesis should allow maximal distribution of forces to all available teeth, remaining hard palate, walls of the defect, and areas of remaining alveolus. In addition, occlusion must be restored to the best extent possible so that the prosthesis can be functional and not just cosmetic. Regular follow-up is mandatory and modifications should be carried out as required. The prosthodontist must be careful to note signs that the obturator is no longer functioning, such as fluid reflux into the nasal cavity, change in voice quality or TMJ problems [56, 59].

**Figure 19.** Surgical obturator with retentive holes on surgical side (left)

**Figure 20.** Surgical obturator fixed in situ immediately following surgery

**Figure 21.** Healed maxillary defect (mirror image)

is removed so the prosthesis can be inserted immediately after inspection of the surgical site

The definitive obturator is designed when the surgical defect has stabilized, approximately 3 to 12 months after definitive surgery [Figure 25]. The bulb portion that extends into the defect area must be kept hollow in order to lessen the weight of the prosthesis [Figure 26]. The design of the prosthesis should allow maximal distribution of forces to all available teeth, remaining hard palate, walls of the defect, and areas of remaining alveolus. In addition, occlusion must be restored to the best extent possible so that the prosthesis can be functional and not just cosmetic. Regular follow-up is mandatory and modifications should be carried out as required. The prosthodontist must be careful to note signs that the obturator is no longer functioning, such as fluid reflux into the nasal cavity, change in voice quality or TMJ problems [56, 59].

by the surgeon [59].

194 Current Concepts in Dental Implantology

**Figure 19.** Surgical obturator with retentive holes on surgical side (left)

**Figure 20.** Surgical obturator fixed in situ immediately following surgery

**Figure 22.** Impression made in irreversible hydrocolloid

**Figure 23.** Try-in of maxillary obturator prosthesis

**Figure 24.** Interim obturator prosthesis in situ

Figure 25 Definitive obturator prosthesis in situ **Figure 25.** Definitive obturator prosthesis in situ

resist the wear and tear applied by the obturator as compared to the friable oral tissues.

*Skin graft the cheek flap* The edentulous patient requires maximal distribution of forces, and the mucosa on the cheek will be an area of contact with the obturator. The thick squamous epithelium of a split‐thickness skin graft will

*Remove the inferior turbinate*. By removing the inferior turbinate, the prosthesis can be contoured to fit into the nasal cavity. This vertical height will resist the rotational forces applied during mastication. In addition, by adding an extension into the nasal cavity, a larger surface of bone may be utilized to balance the stresses generated during

*Skin graft the maxillary sinus walls* This is necessary as the movements of the obturator bulb will transmit greater force to the sinus walls in the edentulous patient. These walls can be prepared during surgery to allow the bony undercuts to serve for retention or for vertical support to keep the prosthesis from rotating into the defect during mastication. The sinus walls are covered with respiratory mucosa, which must be denuded and covered with a split‐ thickness skin graft. Grafting the sinus walls stops formation of polypoid tissue and mucus generation within the sinus

Figure 28 Skin graft on lateral wall of maxillary post‐surgical defect With the increased use of osseointegrated implants, dependence on mechanical and anatomic methods of retention has diminished. Osseointegrated implants provide excellent retention to the definitive obturator. Retentive magnets and various designs of clips are available to minimize force transfer to the implant and supporting bone [3, 63,

Figure 27 Maximum retention of hard palate (mirror image) **Figure 26.** Definitive obturator prosthesis showing hollow bulb

and allows the walls to become load‐bearing areas [Figure 28].

mastication.

64].

#### **6.2. Management of the edentulous maxillectomy patient**

Edentulous maxillectomy patients are always a challenge for the maxillofacial team due to the complexity of postoperative rehabilitation. Retention of the obturator is a problem since there is a lack of support of adjacent teeth for stabilization. In addition, the reduced volume of residual ridge of the edentulous patient demands that stress be distributed to all available portions of the palate.

Some of the important guidelines to be informed to the maxillofacial surgeon or oncosurgeon at the time of resection are as follows:-[59-62].

*Maintain as much hard palate as possible*. Since the edentulous patient must rely on remnants of the hard palate for primary retention, support and stability, the prosthodontist should advise the surgeon to resect only that portion of the hard palate that is mandatory to allow for clean margins [Figure 27]. It is vital to ensure that the ipsilateral palate is preserved which will allow a tripoding effect. If the anterior alveolus can be maintained, the patient will have better facial esthetics and less contracture postoperatively.

**Figure 27.** Maximum retention of hard palate (mirror image)

**Figure 24.** Interim obturator prosthesis in situ

196 Current Concepts in Dental Implantology

**Figure 25.** Definitive obturator prosthesis in situ

**Management of the Edentulous Maxillectomy patient**

distributed to all available portions of the palate.

facial esthetics and less contracture postoperatively.

**Figure 26.** Definitive obturator prosthesis showing hollow bulb

and allows the walls to become load‐bearing areas [Figure 28].

as follows: ‐ [59 ‐ 62].

mastication.

64].

Figure 25 Definitive obturator prosthesis in situ

Figure 26 Definitive obturator prosthesis showing hollow bulb

Edentulous maxillectomy patients are always a challenge for the maxillofacial team due to the complexity of postoperative rehabilitation. Retention of the obturator is a problem since there is a lack of support of adjacent teeth for stabilization. In addition, the reduced volume of residual ridge of the edentulous patient demands that stress be

Some of the important guidelines to be informed to the maxillofacial or oncosurgeon at the time of resection are

*Maintain as much hard palate as possible*. Since the edentulous patient must rely on remnants of the hard palate for primary retention, support, and stability, the prosthodontist should advise the surgeon to resect only that portion of the hard palate that is mandatory to allow for clean margins [Figure 27]. It is vital to ensure that the ipsilateral palate is preserved which will allow a tripoding effect. If the anterior alveolus can be maintained, the patient will have better

*Remove the inferior turbinate*. By removing the inferior turbinate, the prosthesis can be contoured to fit into the nasal cavity. This vertical height will resist the rotational forces applied during mastication. In addition, by adding an extension into the nasal cavity, a larger surface of bone may be utilized to balance the stresses generated during

*Skin graft the maxillary sinus walls* This is necessary as the movements of the obturator bulb will transmit greater force to the sinus walls in the edentulous patient. These walls can be prepared during surgery to allow the bony undercuts to serve for retention or for vertical support to keep the prosthesis from rotating into the defect during mastication. The sinus walls are covered with respiratory mucosa, which must be denuded and covered with a split‐ thickness skin graft. Grafting the sinus walls stops formation of polypoid tissue and mucus generation within the sinus

Figure 28 Skin graft on lateral wall of maxillary post‐surgical defect With the increased use of osseointegrated implants, dependence on mechanical and anatomic methods of retention has diminished. Osseointegrated implants provide excellent retention to the definitive obturator. Retentive magnets and various designs of clips are available to minimize force transfer to the implant and supporting bone [3, 63,

Figure 27 Maximum retention of hard palate (mirror image) *Skin graft the cheek flap* The edentulous patient requires maximal distribution of forces, and the mucosa on the cheek will be an area of contact with the obturator. The thick squamous epithelium of a split‐thickness skin graft will

resist the wear and tear applied by the obturator as compared to the friable oral tissues.

*Skin graft the cheek flap* The edentulous patient requires maximal distribution of forces, and the mucosa on the cheek will be an area of contact with the obturator. The thick squamous epithelium of a split-thickness skin graft will resist the wear and tear applied by the obturator as compared to the friable oral tissues.

*Remove the inferior turbinate*. By removing the inferior turbinate, the prosthesis can be contoured to fit into the nasal cavity. This vertical height will resist the rotational forces applied during mastication. In addition, by adding an extension into the nasal cavity, a larger surface of bone may be utilized to balance the stresses generated during mastication.

*Skin graft the maxillary sinus walls* This is necessary as the movements of the obturator bulb will transmit greater force to the sinus walls in the edentulous patient. These walls can be prepared during surgery to allow the bony undercuts to serve for retention or for vertical support to

**Figure 28.** Skin graft on lateral wall of maxillary post-surgical defect

keep the prosthesis from rotating into the defect during mastication. The sinus walls are covered with respiratory mucosa, which must be denuded and covered with a split-thickness skin graft. Grafting the sinus walls stops formation of polypoid tissue and mucus generation within the sinus and allows the walls to become load-bearing areas [Figure 28].

With the increased use of osseointegrated implants, dependence on mechanical and anatomic methods of retention has diminished. Osseointegrated implants provide excellent retention to the definitive obturator. Retentive magnets and various designs of clips are available to minimize force transfer to the implant and supporting bone [3, 63, 64].

For a long time it was considered taboo to place implants in irradiated bone. However numerous studies have shown that use of hyperbaric oxygen chambers can be of immense value in such patients and allow for successful osseointegration as discussed earlier [25 – 27].

#### **6.3. Zygomatic implants**

Remote bone anchorage using zygoma implants for extensive maxillofacial defects is another option. Effective axial loading of the zygoma implant is accomplished by cross-arch stabiliza‐ tion with a rigid splint framework using at least 4 implants with adequate anterior – posterior spread [Figure 29]. When patients present with maxillary defects that do not have ideal residual anatomy, it is may be possible to place zygoma implants in areas that will enhance the desired splinting effect of the bar assembly. The most significant and immediate benefit of this approach is the ability to extend the prosthesis anchorage points into defect areas, thus minimizing the cantilever forces on teeth and implants in residual ridge tissue. Maxillectomy and severely resorbed maxilla are challenging to restore with provision of removable pros‐ theses. Dental implants are essential to restore aesthetics and function and subsequently quality of life in such group of patients. Zygomatic implants reduce the complications associated with bone grafting procedures and simplify the rehabilitation of atrophic maxilla and maxillectomy [65, 66].

**Figure 29.** Diagrammatic representation of zygomatic implants

keep the prosthesis from rotating into the defect during mastication. The sinus walls are covered with respiratory mucosa, which must be denuded and covered with a split-thickness skin graft. Grafting the sinus walls stops formation of polypoid tissue and mucus generation

With the increased use of osseointegrated implants, dependence on mechanical and anatomic methods of retention has diminished. Osseointegrated implants provide excellent retention to the definitive obturator. Retentive magnets and various designs of clips are available to

For a long time it was considered taboo to place implants in irradiated bone. However numerous studies have shown that use of hyperbaric oxygen chambers can be of immense value in such patients and allow for successful osseointegration as discussed earlier [25 – 27].

Remote bone anchorage using zygoma implants for extensive maxillofacial defects is another option. Effective axial loading of the zygoma implant is accomplished by cross-arch stabiliza‐ tion with a rigid splint framework using at least 4 implants with adequate anterior – posterior spread [Figure 29]. When patients present with maxillary defects that do not have ideal residual anatomy, it is may be possible to place zygoma implants in areas that will enhance the desired splinting effect of the bar assembly. The most significant and immediate benefit of this approach is the ability to extend the prosthesis anchorage points into defect areas, thus minimizing the cantilever forces on teeth and implants in residual ridge tissue. Maxillectomy and severely resorbed maxilla are challenging to restore with provision of removable pros‐ theses. Dental implants are essential to restore aesthetics and function and subsequently quality of life in such group of patients. Zygomatic implants reduce the complications associated with bone grafting procedures and simplify the rehabilitation of atrophic maxilla

within the sinus and allows the walls to become load-bearing areas [Figure 28].

minimize force transfer to the implant and supporting bone [3, 63, 64].

**Figure 28.** Skin graft on lateral wall of maxillary post-surgical defect

**6.3. Zygomatic implants**

198 Current Concepts in Dental Implantology

and maxillectomy [65, 66].

Studies using three-dimensional finite element analysis were carried out to study the impact of different levels of zygomatic bone support (10, 15, and 20 mm) on the biomechanics of zygomatic implants. Results indicated maximum stresses within the fixture were increased by three times, when bone support decreased from 20 to 10 mm, and concentrated at fixture/bone interface. However, stresses within the abutment screw and abutment itself were not signifi‐ cantly different regardless of the bone support level. Supporting bone of 10 mm showed double the stress as compared to levels of 15 and 20 mm. The deflection of the fixtures was decreased by two to three times as the level of bone support increased to 15 mm and 20 mm respectively. Therefore, it important that the zygomatic bone support should not be kept at less than 15 mm. This will reduce the amount of deflection of the fixture and ensure long-term success of the implants [67, 68].

Placement of zygomatic implants lateral to the maxillary sinus, according to the extra-sinus protocol, is one of the treatment options in the rehabilitation of severely atrophic maxilla or following maxillectomy surgery in the head and neck cancer patients. Studies on a full-arch fixed-prosthesis supported by four zygomatic implants in the atrophic maxilla under occlusal loading have shown that maximum von Mises stresses were significantly higher under lateral loading compared with vertical loading within the prosthesis and its supporting implants. Peak stresses was found to be concentrated at the interface between the prosthesis and the fixtures when subjected to vertical load and also at the internal line angles of the prosthesis when subjected to lateral load. The zygomatic bone exhibited much lower stress levels as compared to the alveolar bone especially under lateral load. The zygomatic bone overall showed less values of stress than the alveolar bone and the prosthesis-implant complex under both types of loading [67]. Further research and long-term studies needs to be carried out on these types of implants so that the rehabilitation of the atrophied or missing maxilla can be successfully carried out.

#### **7. Microimplants and maxillofacial rehabilitation**

Patients with craniofacial birth defects present with extreme skeletal deformities and often require a multi-pronged approach for achieving acceptable esthetic results. Vachiramon et. al. [69], have described a series of cases in which orthodontic microimplants were used to better the surgical outcome of such patients. Use of these microimplants for support helped in distraction osteogenesis procedures involving the mandible, maxilla, or midface. The micro‐ implants were additionally used to stabilize the dentition for orthodontic tooth movement or for resisting change from long-term use of inter-arch elastics. They concluded that microim‐ plants appear to have good potential in the approach to treat patients with craniofacial anomalies. They can also be useful to present an alternative treatment plan in patients who refuse orthognathic surgery. Microimplants may be of great utility for the rehabilitation of craniofacial patients with congenitally missing permanent teeth; malformed teeth or patients with ectodermal dysplasia with reduced dentition that makes reciprocal orthodontic anchor‐ age difficult [69].

#### **8. Future trends in maxillofacial rehabilitation**

The use of Computed Tomography (CT) and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) in conjunc‐ tion with Rapid Prototyping (RP) have revolutionized the methods of old-fashioned impres‐ sions using various types of dental materials and sculpting of the prosthesis by hand in wax or clay [Figure 30, 31]. Recently advances in 3D optical imaging using 3D whole field profil‐ ometer based on the projection of incoherent light and 3D laser eye-safe scanners have been utilized [70, 71]. The advantages of such a system are that they are non-invasive, have a higher speed of data acquisition, and the scanners are more rugged and portable than the CT or MRI scanners [70].

Once the data has been acquired the virtual 3D models are obtained and the final prosthesis can be designed virtually. Two models one with the defect and another with the built up prosthesis are generated using epoxy photo-polymerising resins in a 3D printer [Figure 32, 33]. The final prosthesis is then fabricated from silicone rubber using these moulds [70 – 72].

In order to minimize the harmful effects of the metallic implants and their by-products, several newer materials are being tried. New alloys like tantalum, niobium, zirconium, and magne‐ sium are receiving attention given their satisfying mechanical and biological properties. Nonoxide ceramics like silicon nitride and silicon carbide are being currently developed as a promising implant material possessing a combination of properties such as good wear and corrosion resistance, increased ductility, good fracture and creep resistance, and relatively high hardness in comparison to alumina. Polymer/magnesium composites are being developed to improve mechanical properties as well as retain polymer's property of degradation [73].

Nanotechnology and tissue engineering along with the concepts of stem cell technology are poised to dramatically define the next quantum leap in the field of maxillofacial reconstruction.

**Figure 30.** 3D virtual reconstruction and planning

**7. Microimplants and maxillofacial rehabilitation**

**8. Future trends in maxillofacial rehabilitation**

age difficult [69].

200 Current Concepts in Dental Implantology

scanners [70].

Patients with craniofacial birth defects present with extreme skeletal deformities and often require a multi-pronged approach for achieving acceptable esthetic results. Vachiramon et. al. [69], have described a series of cases in which orthodontic microimplants were used to better the surgical outcome of such patients. Use of these microimplants for support helped in distraction osteogenesis procedures involving the mandible, maxilla, or midface. The micro‐ implants were additionally used to stabilize the dentition for orthodontic tooth movement or for resisting change from long-term use of inter-arch elastics. They concluded that microim‐ plants appear to have good potential in the approach to treat patients with craniofacial anomalies. They can also be useful to present an alternative treatment plan in patients who refuse orthognathic surgery. Microimplants may be of great utility for the rehabilitation of craniofacial patients with congenitally missing permanent teeth; malformed teeth or patients with ectodermal dysplasia with reduced dentition that makes reciprocal orthodontic anchor‐

The use of Computed Tomography (CT) and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) in conjunc‐ tion with Rapid Prototyping (RP) have revolutionized the methods of old-fashioned impres‐ sions using various types of dental materials and sculpting of the prosthesis by hand in wax or clay [Figure 30, 31]. Recently advances in 3D optical imaging using 3D whole field profil‐ ometer based on the projection of incoherent light and 3D laser eye-safe scanners have been utilized [70, 71]. The advantages of such a system are that they are non-invasive, have a higher speed of data acquisition, and the scanners are more rugged and portable than the CT or MRI

Once the data has been acquired the virtual 3D models are obtained and the final prosthesis can be designed virtually. Two models one with the defect and another with the built up prosthesis are generated using epoxy photo-polymerising resins in a 3D printer [Figure 32, 33]. The final prosthesis is then fabricated from silicone rubber using these moulds [70 – 72].

In order to minimize the harmful effects of the metallic implants and their by-products, several newer materials are being tried. New alloys like tantalum, niobium, zirconium, and magne‐ sium are receiving attention given their satisfying mechanical and biological properties. Nonoxide ceramics like silicon nitride and silicon carbide are being currently developed as a promising implant material possessing a combination of properties such as good wear and corrosion resistance, increased ductility, good fracture and creep resistance, and relatively high hardness in comparison to alumina. Polymer/magnesium composites are being developed to improve mechanical properties as well as retain polymer's property of degradation [73].

Nanotechnology and tissue engineering along with the concepts of stem cell technology are poised to dramatically define the next quantum leap in the field of maxillofacial reconstruction.

**Figure 31.** Rapid prototype modelling of maxillofacial prosthesis

Whether it is regeneration of new osseous tissue *in vivo* for placement of implants or even the regeneration of a complete ear or nose literally 'grown' from the stem cells of the person or a suitable donor-the possibilities are endless [74, 75]. It seems to be just a matter of time before the dream of autologous reconstruction of defective or missing anatomical structures soon becomes a reality.

**Figure 32.** 3D printer

**Figure 33.** 3D printed model of mandibular defect

#### **9. Conclusion**

The discovery of osseointegration has been arguably one of the most beneficial medical breakthroughs especially in the head and neck region. The number of successful implants being placed is increasing rapidly as better implants, more efficient investigative techniques and superior armamentarium is readily available. These implants have also revolutionized the scope and the efficacy of rehabilitation of the entire craniofacial region [76].

Despite the rise in cancers of the head and neck region there is also a deeper understanding of the changes at cellular level and better treatment options and targeted medication. It is hoped that with each passing day there will be continued dedicated research to fight and eradicate all these killer diseases. Until then the science of craniofacial implantology will ensure that the patients receive the most comprehensive rehabilitation that can be offered and ensure that their early return to form and function.

In future it is hoped that technological advances in allied fields such as radio-diagnosis and imaging, CAD-CAM manufacturing, tissue engineering, laser scanning, 3D-printing, devel‐ opment of newer nano-based materials and robotic placement of implants will work in tandem to ensure that larger numbers of patients can be treated early, economically and effectively [77-79]. Then alone will the dream of health for all be truly a reality.

#### **Acknowledgements**

I gratefully acknowledge all my respected teachers, enthusiastic students and tolerant patients who have taught me that I know so little and shown me that there is so much more learn.

#### **Author details**

Derek D'Souza\*

Address all correspondence to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Consultant Prosthodontist, Pune, India

#### **References**

**9. Conclusion**

**Figure 33.** 3D printed model of mandibular defect

**Figure 32.** 3D printer

202 Current Concepts in Dental Implantology

The discovery of osseointegration has been arguably one of the most beneficial medical breakthroughs especially in the head and neck region. The number of successful implants being placed is increasing rapidly as better implants, more efficient investigative techniques and superior armamentarium is readily available. These implants have also revolutionized the

Despite the rise in cancers of the head and neck region there is also a deeper understanding of the changes at cellular level and better treatment options and targeted medication. It is hoped that with each passing day there will be continued dedicated research to fight and eradicate all these killer diseases. Until then the science of craniofacial implantology will ensure that the

scope and the efficacy of rehabilitation of the entire craniofacial region [76].

[6] Coelho PG, Granjeiro JM, Romanos GE, Suzuki M, Silva NR, Cardaropoli G, et al. Ba‐ sic research methods and current trends of dental implant surfaces. J Biomed Mater

[7] Actis L, Gaviria L Ong JL. Antimicrobial surfaces for craniofacial implants: state of

[8] Ramaswamy Y, Wu C, Zreiqat H. Orthopedic coating materials: considerations and

[9] Özcan M, Hämmerle C. Titanium as a reconstruction and implant material in dentist‐

[10] Stanford CM. Surface modifications of dental implants. Aust Dent J 2008; 53(Suppl

[11] Lin YH, Peng PW, Ou KL. The effect of titanium with electrochemical anodization on the response of the adherent osteoblast-like cell. Implant Dent 2012; 21(4): 344-9.

[12] Kim MH, Lee SY, Kim MJ, Kim SK, Heo SJ, Koak JY. Effect of biomimetic deposition

[13] Hanawa T. Degradation of dental implants. In: Eliaz N (ed) Degradation of Implant

[14] Iezzi G, Malchiodi L, Quaranta A, Ghensi P, Piattelli A. Peri-implant bone response around a human hydroxyapatite-coated implant retrieved after a 10-year loading pe‐

[15] Baker MI, Eberhardt AW, Martin DM, McGwin G, Lemons JE. Bone properties sur‐ rounding hydroxyapatite-coated custom osseous integrated dental implants. J. Bi‐

[16] van Oirschot BAJA, Bronkhorst EM, van den Beucken JJJP, Meijer GJ, Jansen JA, Junker R. Long-term survival of calcium phosphate-coated dental implants: a metaanalytical approach to the clinical literature. Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 24, 2013, 355–62.

[17] Jimbo R, Coelho PG, Vandeweghe S, Schwartz-Filho HO, Hayashi M, Ono D, Wen‐ nerberg, A. Histological and three-dimensional evaluation of osseointegration to nanostructured calcium phosphate-coated implants. Acta Biomaterialia 2011; 7(12):

[18] Goené RJ, Testori T, Trisi P. Influence of a nanometer-scale surface enhancement on *de novo* bone formation on titanium implants: a histomorphometric study in human

[19] Hong YS, Kim MJ, Han JS, Yeo IS. Effects of hydrophilicity and fluoride surface mod‐ ifications to titanium dental implants on early osseointegration: An in vivo study.

maxillae. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2007; 27: 211-9.

the art. J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2013; 39(2): 43–54.

on anodized titanium surfaces. J Dental Res 2011; 90(6):711-16.

riod: A case report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012; 28(4): 190-4.

Materials. Springer: New York; 2012: 57-78.

omed. Mater. Res 2010; 95B: 218–24.

Implant Dent 2014; 23(5): 529-33.

applications. Expert Rev Med Devices 2009; 6:423-30.

ry: Advantages and Pitfalls. Materials 2012; 5:1528-45.

Res B Appl Biomater 2009; 88:579-96.

1): S26–S33

204 Current Concepts in Dental Implantology

4229-34.

[50] Nanda A, Jain V, Kumar R, Kabra K. Implant-supported auricular prosthesis. Indian J Dent Res 2011; 22:152-6.

[36] Curi MM, Oliveira MF, Molina G, Cardoso CL, De Groot OL, Branemark PI, de Cás‐ sia BRK. Extraoral implants in the rehabilitation of craniofacial defects: implant and prosthesis survival rates and peri-implant soft tissue evaluation. J Oral Maxillofac

[37] Cohen M. Craniofacial surgery: the first 25 years. Where do we come from? Who are

[38] Smolarz-Wojnowska A, Raithel F, Gellrich NC, Klein C. Quality of implant anchored craniofacial and intraoral prostheses: Patients evaluation. J Craniofac Surg 2014;

[39] Alford M. Enucleation, evisceration, and exenteration techniques In: Duane's Clinical Ophthalmology [CD ROM] Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. 2006; (5) Chapter 82.

[40] Ozcelik TB, Yilmaz B Two-piece impression procedure for implant-retained orbital

[41] Karakoca-Nemli, S, Aydin, C, Yilmaz H and Bal BT. A method for fabricating an im‐ plant-retained orbital prosthesis using the existing prosthesis. J Prosthodont 2011; 20:

[42] Ethunandan M, Downie I, Flood T. Implant-retained nasal prosthesis for reconstruc‐ tion of large rhinectomy defects: the Salisbury experience. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg.

[43] Bedrossian E, Brånemark PI. Systematic treatment planning protocol for patients with maxillofacial defects: avoiding living a life of seclusion and depression. Atlas

[44] Banerjee S, Kumar S, Bera A, Gupta T, Banerjee A. Magnet retained intraoral-extra oral combination prosthesis: a case report. J Adv Prosthodont 2012; 4(4): 235-8.

[45] Goyal S, Goyal MK, Kallingan P. Magnetically retained extra oral prosthesis and

[46] Dholam KP, Shetty KG, Bhirangi PP. Restoration of nasal defect with implant-re‐

[47] Lovely M, Dathan PC, Gopal D, George BT, Nair KC. Implant retained auricular prosthesis with a modified Hader bar: A case report J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2014;

[48] Aydin C, Karakoca S, Yilmaz H, Yilmaz C. Implant retained auricular prosthesis: An assessment of implant success and prosthetic complications. Int J Prosthodont 2008;

[49] Guo G, Schwedtner O, Klein M. A retrospective study of implant-retained auricular

we? Where are we going? J Craniofac Surg 2014; 25(1): 14-6.

prostheses. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2012; 27(5): 93-5.

Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am 2012; 20(1): 135-58.

maxillary interim obturator. Eur J Prosthodont 2014; 2: 37-40.

prosthesis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2008; 23: 539-43.

tained nose prosthesis. J Indian Prosthodont Soc; 2007; 7 (4): 196-9

Surg 2012; 70(7): 1551-7.

25(2): 202-7.

206 Current Concepts in Dental Implantology

583–6.

2010; 39 (4): 343-9.

14(2): 187-190.

21: 241-4.

[77] Olszewski, R. Surgical engineering in cranio-maxillofacial surgery: a literature re‐ view. J Healthc Eng 2012; 3(1): 53-86

[64] Padmanabhan TV, Kumar VA, Mohamed KK, Unnikrishnan N. Prosthetic rehabilita‐ tion of a maxillectomy with a two-piece hollow bulb obturator. A clinical report. J

[65] Sharma A, Rahul GR. Zygomatic implants/fixture: a systematic review. J Oral Im‐

[66] Gonçalves, LM, Gonçalves TMSV, Rodrigues AHC, Lanza MD, Nascimento PRG, Girundi FMS. Intra-and extra-oral prostheses retained by zygoma implants following resection of the upper lip and nose. J Prosthodont 2014; doi: 10.1111/jopr.12178.

[67] Romeed SA, Malik R, Dunne SM. Zygomatic implants: the impact of zygoma bone

[68] Pasquale P, Ferrari F, Trevisiol L, Francesco NP. Zygoma implant-supported pros‐ thetic rehabilitation of a patient after subtotal bilateral maxillectomy. J Craniofac

[69] Vachiramon A, Urata M, Kyung HM, Yamashita DD, Yen SLK, Cleft Palate Craniofac

[70] Cavagnini G, Sansoni G, Vertuan A, Docchio F. 3D optical body scanning: applica‐ tion to forensic medicine and to maxillofacial reconstruction. In: International Con‐

[71] Qiu J, Gu X, Xiong Y, Zhang F. Nasal prosthesis rehabilitation using CAD-CAM tech‐ nology after total rhinectomy: A pilot study. In: Supportive Care in Cancer 2011; 19

[72] Subburaj K, Nair C, Rajesh C, Meshram SM, Ravi B. Rapid development of auricular prosthesis using CAD and rapid prototyping technologies. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac

[73] Jakobsen C, Sørensen JA, Kassem M, and Thygesen TH. Mesenchymal stem cells in oral reconstructive surgery: A systematic review of the literature. J Oral Rehabil 2013;

[74] Mantripragada VP, Lecka-Czernik B, Ebraheim NA, Jayasuriya AC. An overview of recent advances in designing orthopedic and craniofacial implants. J Biomed Mater

[75] Nayyer L, Patel KH, Esmaeili A, Rippel RA, Birchall M, O'toole G, Butler PE, Seifali‐ an AM. Tissue engineering: revolution and challenge in auricular cartilage recon‐

[76] Roumanas ED, Freymiller EG, Chang TL, Aghaloo T, Buemer J III. Implant retained prosthesis for facial defects: An up to 14-year follow-up report on the survival rates