DOI:

10.37988/1811-153X_2023_1_138

Comparative assessment of the effectiveness of rehabilitation of patients with tissue defects of the maxillofacial area when using epitheses on magnetic and adhesive fixation

Downloads

Authors

  • S.A. Nikolaenko 1, 2, PhD in Medical Sciences, full professor, director; executive officer
    ORCID: 0000-0002-7191-4665
  • A.A. Khalapyan 1, 2, dentist; specialist in facial prosthetics
    ORCID: 0000-0001-5414-7217
  • L.A. Shapiro 3, associate professor of the Medical and biological physics Department
    ORCID: 0000-0003-2969-511X
  • 1 Prof. Nikolayenko Clinic, 660127, Krasnoyarsk, Russia
  • 2 “Epitetics” Medical Production Center, 660127, Krasnoyarsk, Russia
  • 3 Krasnoyarsk State Medical University, 660022, Krasnoyarsk, Russia

Abstract

Today, it is relevant to develop new medical technologies for prosthetic replacement of facial defects in patients with the impossibility or inefficiency of their elimination by surgery, which makes it possible to increase the effectiveness of rehabilitation measures in patients of this category. Purpose of the study. Evaluation of the clinical effectiveness of the rehabilitation of patients with defects in tissues and organs of the middle zone of the face using epitheses on magnetic and adhesive fixation. >. The results of rehabilitation of 46 patients with defects of various localization and genesis, persons of both sexes aged 15 to 77 years, who were divided into 2 groups, were considered. The I group consisted of patients (20 people), for the fixation of epitheses in which the universal system of the MPC “Epitetics” of our own design was used. The II group included 26 people, where adhesive fixation using silicone and water-soluble glue was used for the same purpose. To assess the quality of the use of epitheses, a method of questioning patients was developed, including the patient's personal data, the quality of fit and fixation of the orthopedic structure to near-defective tissues, ease of use and other characteristics of the prosthesis, as well as a protocol for collecting material to study the quality of life of patients after rehabilitation. >. A comparative evaluation of the results of the usability of epitheses with adhesive and magnetic fixation showed the high efficiency of the latter. The use of adhesive fixation, in addition to the inconvenience associated with the constant periodic need to apply and remove adhesive agents, in most patients contributed to the development of contact epidermatitis. The strength of fixation of orthopedic structures gradually decreased over time. In the second group of patients, such phenomena as contact epidermatitis were not detected, which is explained by the lack of constancy of chemical and mechanical tissue irritation, except for the need for close contact of the inner surface of structures with the outer surfaces of tissues. Magnetic fixation of facial epitheses developed by the MPC “Epitetics”, under the latter condition, made it possible to maintain the stabilization of the prosthesis during the functioning of the dentition and mimic muscles of the face for the entire period of reunification with the mesostructure of the fixing system. 85% of patients in this group rated the wearing comfort of the epithesis as “excellent”, which is 35% higher than for epitheses with adhesive fixation (p=0.027). >. The universal system of magnetic fixation of facial ectoprostheses MPC “Epitetics” has a significant advantage over adhesive ones. It is characterized by ease of attachment of the prosthesis, which ensures that the prosthetic construction can be properly installed, thereby contributing to comfort and confidence in its use. In addition, the reliability of fixation allows the production of thinner prostheses, with thinning edges that merge with the skin, which improves the overall appearance of patients.

Key words:

epitheses, maxillofacial defects, rehabilitation, adhesive fixation, magnetic fixation, universal system for fixing epitheses MPC “Epitetics”

For Citation

[1]
Nikolaenko S.A., Khalapyan A.A., Shapiro L.A. Comparative assessment of the effectiveness of rehabilitation of patients with tissue defects of the maxillofacial area when using epitheses on magnetic and adhesive fixation. Clinical Dentistry (Russia).  2023; 26 (1): 138—146. DOI: 10.37988/1811-153X_2023_1_138

References

  1. Arutyunov S.D., Leontiev V.K., Tsimbalistov A.V., Drobyshev A.Yu., Bardenshtein L.M., Kharazyan A.E., Raputa A.C., Tsarev V.N. Occupational risks in the rehabilitation of patients with acquired defects of the face and jaw (review of literature). Challenges in Modern Medicine. 2020; 2: 285—303 (In Russ.). eLIBRARY ID: 43950370
  2. Gastaldi G., Palumbo L., Moreschi C., Gherlone E.F., Capparé P. Prosthetic management of patients with oro-maxillo-facial defects: a long-term follow-up retrospective study. Oral Implantol (Rome). 2017; 10 (3): 276—282. PMID: 29285330
  3. Powell S.K., Cruz R.L.J., Ross M.T., Woodruff M.A. Past, present, and future of soft-tissue prosthetics: Advanced polymers and advanced manufacturing. Adv Mater. 2020; 32 (42): e2001122. PMID: 32909302
  4. Antonova I.N., Kalakutskii N.V., Veselova K.A., Kalakutskii I.N., Gromova N.V. Properties of materials for craniofacial prostheses. The Dental Institute. 2019; 1 (82): 94—97 (In Russ.). eLIBRARY ID: 39154490
  5. Urgunaliev B.K., Tsoi A.R., Kuramaeva U.K. Traumatology of the maxillofacial region: current condition of the problems (literature review). Russian Stomatology. 2019; 1: 23—27 (In Russ.). eLIBRARY ID: 39256688
  6. Kozlov V.A., Matchin A.A. Issues of rehabilitation for oral cavity cancer patients. The Dental Institute. 2014; 1 (62): 34—37 (In Russ.). eLIBRARY ID: 22133896
  7. Krokhmal S.V., Karpov A.S., Raevskaya A.I., Kaloev A.D., Apaguni A.E., Shevchenko P.P. Factors leading to the occurrence of maxillofacial injury and its complications. Modern Problems of Science and Education. 2020; 5: 146 (In Russ.). eLIBRARY ID: 44170954
  8. Klimczak J., Helman S., Kadakia S., Sawhney R., Abraham M., Vest A.K., Ducic Y. Prosthetics in Facial Reconstruction. Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr. 2018; 11 (1): 6—14. PMID: 29387298
  9. Pustovaya I.V., Engibaryan M.A., Svetitskiy P.V., Aedinova I.V., Volkova V.L., Chertova N.A., Ulianova Yu.V., Bauzhadze M.V. Orthopedic treatment in cancer patients with maxillofacial pathology. South Russian Journal of Cancer. 2021; 2: 22—33 (In Russ.). eLIBRARY ID: 46162391
  10. Put' V.A., Solodkiy V.G., Reshetov I.V., Il'ichev E.A., Podstavnev V.G. Implant-prosthetic rehabilitation of a patient with an extensive maxillofacial defect. Stomatology. 2020; 5: 87—91 (In Russ.). eLIBRARY ID: 44027964
  11. Singh N., Baby D., Rajguru J.P., Patil P.B., Thakkannavar S.S., Pujari V.B. Inflammation and cancer. Ann Afr Med. 2019; 18 (3): 121—126. PMID: 31417011
  12. Egorenkov V.V. Practical and theoretical issues of surgery in oncology. Practical Oncology. 2020; 2: 101—105 (In Russ.). eLIBRARY ID: 43844855
  13. Salazar-Gamarra R., Binasco S., Seelaus R., Dib L.L. Present and future of extraoral maxillofacial prosthodontics: Cancer rehabilitation. Front Oral Health. 2022; 3: 1003430. PMID: 36338571
  14. Arutyunov S.D., Polyakov D.I., Muslov S.A., Kharazyan A.E., Stepanov A.G., Astashina N.B. Study of the quality of life of patients using the QL PAER specific questionnaire after prosthetic auricular reconstruction. Clinical Dentistry (Russia). 2021; 1 (97): 160—164 (In Russ.). eLIBRARY ID: 44847645
  15. de Oliveira F.M., Salazar-Gamarra R., Öhman D., Nannmark U., Pecorari V., Dib L.L. Quality of life assessment of patients utilizing orbital implant-supported prostheses. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2018; 20 (4): 438—443. PMID: 29508545
  16. Dings J.P.J., Merkx M.A.W., de Clonie Maclennan-Naphausen M.T.P., van de Pol P., Maal T.J.J., Meijer G.J. Maxillofacial prosthetic rehabilitation: A survey on the quality of life. J Prosthet Dent. 2018; 120 (5): 780—786. PMID: 30414646
  17. Wondergem M., Lieben G., Bouman S., van den Brekel M.W., Lohuis P.J. Patients› satisfaction with facial prostheses. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016; 54 (4): 394—9. PMID: 26508540
  18. Farook T.H., Jamayet N.B., Abdullah J.Y., Rajion Z.A., Alam M.K. A systematic review of the computerized tools and digital techniques applied to fabricate nasal, auricular, orbital and ocular prostheses for facial defect rehabilitation. J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020; 121 (3): 268—277. PMID: 31610244
  19. Elhelow K.M., Al-Thobaiti Y.E., Gomawi A.A. The prosthetic rehabilitation of a patient with a lateral postsurgical defect using a 2-piece magnet-retained facial prosthesis: A clinical report. J Prosthet Dent. 2018; 119 (5): 848—851. PMID: 28918299
  20. Kulbakin D.E., Choynzonov E.L., Kulkov S.N., Buyakova S.P., Chernov V.I., Mukhamedov M.R., Buyakov A.S. Method of maxillofacial reconstruction using individualized implants made of bioactive ceramics. Head and neck tumors. 2017; 4: 29—34 (In Russ.). eLIBRARY ID: 32307035
  21. Rahimov C.R., Ahundov A.A., Hajiyeva G.I., Rahimli R.Ch., Safarov D.A., Farzaliyev I.M. Treatment of extensive tumors of the jaws by hemimandibuloectomy with simultaniouse reconstruction of the mandible, arthroplasty of temporomandibular joint, orthopedic rehabilitation supported by dental implants. Head and neck tumors. 2020; 3: 97—110 (In Russ.). eLIBRARY ID: 44208979
  22. Buzayan M.M. Prosthetic management of mid-facial defect with magnet-retained silicone prosthesis. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2014; 38 (1): 62—7. PMID: 23625838
  23. Antonova I.N., Kalakutsky N.V., Veselova K.A., Kalakutsky I.N., Gromova N.V. Craniofacial prostheses as a contemporary method of rehabilitation of patients with craniofacial defects. The Dental Institute. 2018; 1 (78): 98—100 (In Russ.). eLIBRARY ID: 34964801
  24. Brandão T.B., Vechiato Filho A.J., de Souza Batista V.E., de Oliveira M.C., Visser A., de Faria J.C., Júnior G.C., Santos-Silva A.R. A systematic comparison of bar-clips versus magnets. J Prosthet Dent. 2017; 117 (2): 321—326.e2. PMID: 27666496
  25. Unkovskiy A., Spintzyk S., Brom J., Huettig F., Keutel C. Direct 3D printing of silicone facial prostheses: A preliminary experience in digital workflow. J Prosthet Dent. 2018; 120 (2): 303—308. PMID: 29429837
  26. Guttal S.S., Nadiger R.K., Shetty P. Cytotoxic effect of indigenously fabricated dental magnets for application in prosthodontics. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2018; 18 (1): 29—34. PMID: 29430139
  27. Kim S.M., Cho Y.J., Eo M.Y., Kim J.S., Lee S.K. Silicone facial prosthesis: A preliminary report on silicone adhesion to magnet. J Craniofac Surg. 2018; 29 (1): e6-e8. PMID: 29023292
  28. Cobein M.V., Coto N.P., Crivello Junior O., Lemos J.B.D., Vieira L.M., Pimentel M.L., Byrne H.J., Dias R.B. Retention systems for extraoral maxillofacial prosthetic implants: a critical review. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2017; 55 (8): 763—769. PMID: 28552609
  29. Gunther V.E. Stress-strain hysteretic behavior features of metal materials and TiNi-based implants. Russian Physics Journal. 2014; 6-2: 4—16 (In Russ.). eLIBRARY ID: 22806794
  30. Nikolaenko S.A., Khalapyan A.A., Ilchenko O.A., Shapiro L.A. Application of a universal system of epitesis fixation in the rehabilitation of patients with maxillofacial defects. Stomatology. 2022; 2: 36—41 (In Russ.). eLIBRARY ID: 48239904

Downloads

Received

January 19, 2023

Accepted

February 13, 2023

Published on

March 22, 2023