Bar-clip versus magnet-retained auricular prostheses: A prospective clinical study with a 3-year follow-up.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Implant-retained auricular prostheses, on a bar-clip or with a magnetic retention system, are considered successful treatment for missing ears. However, which of these 2 retention systems is preferred by patients is unknown. PURPOSE: The purpose of this clinical study was to assess which retention system is mostly preferred by patients wearing implant-retained auricular prostheses: bar-clip retention or magnetic retention. MATERIAL AND METHODS: All consecutive patients visiting the clinic between March 2014 and November 2014 for a routine follow-up of their implant-retained auricular prostheses on a bar-clip retention system were asked to enroll in this descriptive study comparing patient preference for the retention system: bar-clip versus magnets. Participants were asked to complete a questionnaire to obtain patient satisfaction scores regarding their auricular prosthesis before and 3 months after changing to a magnetic-retained auricular prosthesis. After 3 months, participants were asked to state their preference for either their previous bar-clip system or the new magnetic system. If they did not prefer the magnetic system, participants were able to return to their previous bar-clip system. The study follow-ups were performed at 6, 12, 24, and 36 months. Again, patient satisfaction was scored with the aid of the same questionnaire, and prosthetic care and aftercare were also assessed. RESULTS: Of 20 eligible patients, 17 participants (12 men, 5 women) enrolled in the study. The mean score for patient satisfaction for the bar-clip system at the start of the study was high (8 ±1.62). After 3 months, 2 participants wanted to return to their previous bar-clip system, followed by 1 more at the 6-month evaluation and 2 more at the 1-year evaluation. After 3 years, 9 of 16 participants (57%) preferred the magnetic-retained auricular prosthesis. During the 3 years of follow-up, aftercare was considered minor for both the bar-clip and the magnetic system. No participants developed peri-implantitis. All participants indicated that cleaning and placing the magnetic-retained auricular prosthesis was easier than the bar-clip system. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of the participants (59%) in this study, especially the elderly participants, preferred the magnetic retention system. When compared with the bar-clip system, no additional aftercare was needed.

Recommendations for implant-retained nasal prostheses after ablative tumor surgery: Minimal surgical aftercare, high implant survival, and satisfied patients.

BACKGROUND: Nasal defects resulting from tumor resection are preferably rehabilitated with implant-retained nasal prostheses. Aftercare, clinical outcome of the implants, and patients' satisfaction with implant-retained nasal prostheses were assessed. METHODS: Twenty-eight consecutive patients needing total rhinectomy because of tumor resection between 1998 and 2013 were treated according to a standardized protocol with 2 implants in the nasal floor. Surgical and prosthetic aftercare was scored using patient records. Finally in 2014, skin reaction, peri-implant bone loss, and patients' satisfaction were assessed in all 13 still living patients. RESULTS: In total, 56 implants were inserted (median follow-up, 35.1 months; interquartile range [IQR], 8.9-63.3). Implant survival was 96.4%. Implant survival was independent of radiotherapy. Peri-implant skin was healthy and patients' satisfaction high. Longevity of the prostheses was limited. CONCLUSION: Rehabilitation of nasal defects resulting from total rhinectomy with implant-retained nasal prostheses, according to our protocol, resulted in high patient satisfaction and favorable treatment outcome. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Head Neck 38: E-E, 2016.

Digitally designed surgical guides for placing implants in the nasal floor of dentate patients: a series of three cases.

PURPOSE: Insight into the bone volume and position of natural teeth is essential when placing implants to retain nasal prostheses. This paper describes a series of three cases in which a new method was applied for implant placement in the nasal floor of dentate patients using digital planning techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS: With the aid of computer software, digital planning of implants in the nasal floor based on cone beam computed tomography was performed. Next, surgical guides for implant placement were digitally designed and fabricated using rapid prototyping. RESULTS: In all three patients, implants could be placed and nasal prostheses could be manufactured as planned. All anterior teeth remained vital. Analysis of planning and post-implant placement cone beam computed tomography scans revealed high accuracy of implant placement. CONCLUSION: The applied method allows for reliable implant placement in close proximity to the preoperatively planned implant position.