An Alternative Approach to Combine Orbital Prosthesis and Obturator: A Case Report

ABSTRACT

This report describes a different approach for diminishing the movements of orbital prosthesis during mimic movements and chewing function. Mechanical devices such as magnets are used to enhance the retention in case lack of the implants. However rigid fixation of obturator and orbital prosthesis can result in movements of the orbital prosthesis during mastication. In this case obturator and orbital prosthesis are combined by magnets. However this combination is not rigid because of an active part which provides movement. This active part allows movements in a space constructed in the acrylic base of orbital prosthesis. Thus, the movements that may occur on orbital prosthesis during chewing can be diminished by this simple mechanism. Due to the fact that designing such a mechanism that minimizes the movements of the orbital prosthesis contributes patient’s comfort. (Eur J Dent 2011;5:459-464)

Key words:

Combined prostheses - Magnets - Movement - Obturator - Orbital prosthesis

• REFERENCES

• 1 Wieselmann-Penkner K, Arnetzl G, Mayer W, Bratschko R. Minimizing movement of an orbital prosthesis retained by an obturator prosthesis. J Prosthet Dent 2004;91:188-190.
• 2 Goiato MC, Fernandes AU, dos Santos DM, Barão VA. Positioning magnets on a multiple/sectional maxillofacial prosthesis. J Contemp Dent Pract 2007;8:101-107.
• 3 Koyama S, Sasaki K, Inai T, Watanabe M. Effects of defect configuration, size, and remaining teeth on masticatory function in post-maxillectomy patients. J Oral Rehabil 2005;32:635–641.
• 4 Keyf F. Obturator prostheses for hemimaxillectomy patients. J Oral Rehabil 2001;28:821-829.
• 5 Depprich RA, Handschel JG, Meyer U, Meissner G. Comparison of prevalence of microorganisms on titanium and silicone/polymethyl methacrylate obturators used for rehabilitation of maxillary defects. J Prosthet Dent 2008;99:400-405.
• 6 Wang RR. Sectional prosthesis for total maxillectomy patients: A clinical report. J Prosthet Dent 1997;78:241-244.
• 7 Goiato MC, Pesqueira AA, Ramos da Silva C, Filho HG, Micheline dos Santos D. Patient satisfaction with maxillofacial prosthesis. Literature review. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2009;62:175-180.
• 8 Oki M, Iida T, Mukohyama H, Tomizuka K, Takato T, Taniguchi H. The vibratory characteristics of obturators with different bulb height and form designs. J Oral Rehabil 2006;33:43-51.
• 9 Rilo B, Dasilva JL, Ferros I, Mora MJ, Santana U. Hollowbulb interim obturator for maxillary resection: A case report. J Oral Rehabil 2005;32:234–236.
• 10 Nishigawa G, Maruo Y, Jin K, Oki K, Minagi S. A custommade sealing screw cap for a closed, hollow obturator. J Craniofac Surg 2007;18:1138-1141.
• 11 Asher ES, Psillakis JJ, Piro JD, Wright RF. Technique for quick conversion of an obturator into a hollow bulb. J Prosthet Dent 2001;85:419-420.
• 12 Habib BH, Driscoll CF. Fabrication of a closed hollow obturator. J Prosthet Dent 2004;91:383-385.
• 13 Wolfaardt JF. Maxillofacial prosthetics--an international perspective of the British status quo. J Oral Rehabil 1992;19:1-11.
• 14 Kiat-amnuay S, Lemon JC, Wesley PJ. Technique for fabricating a lightweight, urethane-lined silicone orbital prosthesis. J Prosthet Dent 2001;86:210-213.
• 15 Kiat-amnuay S, Waters PJ, Roberts D, Gettleman L. Adhesive retention of silicone and chlorinated polyetylene for maxillofacial prosthesis. J Prosthet Dent 2008;99:483-488.
• 16 Seto K. Atlas of oral and maxillofacial rehabilitation. Tokyo: Quintessence Publishing Co., Ltd.; 2003; p.25-28.
• 17 McKinstry RE. Fundamentals of facial prosthetics. Arlington: ABI Professional Publications; 1995; p.121-136.