I TUOI DATI
I TUOI ORDINI
N. prodotti: 0
Totale ordine: € 0,00
I TUOI ABBONAMENTI
I TUOI ARTICOLI
Rivista di Odontostomatologia e Chirurgia Maxillo-Facciale
Minerva Stomatologica 2016 February;65(1):17-38
Retrospective review of 78 rehabilitated head and neck postoncological patients: a new classification method
Edoardo BRAUNER, Valentino VALENTINI, Sara JAMSHIR, Giorgio GUARINO, Andrea BATTISTI, Maria Teresa FADDA, Giorgio POMPA ✉
Department of Oral And Maxillo‑Facial Sciences, “Sapienza” University of Rome, Rome, Italy
BACKGROUND: Numerous studies have been published about the prosthetic rehabilitation of the postoncological maxillo-facial patient, but the guidelines that emerge lack a correlation between the anatomical classification of the treated site, which generally is preparatory upon surgery, and the type of prosthetic rehabilitation appropriate to the new anatomical and functional condition. With this correlation, it would be possible to obtain a multidisciplinary and predictable therapeutic process, able to identify from the beginning the best type of prosthetic rehabilitation.
METHODS: The authors analyzed a sample of 78 patients treated in the Maxillofacial Surgery Unit of “Sapienza” University of Rome for a tumor of the head and neck area, and at a later stage prosthetically rehabilitated in the years from 2010 to 2013 in the Prosthetic Rehabilitation Unit of the same University because of the consequences of the ablative surgery. After having analyzed data concerning the treatment of the maxillofacial tumor, Authors classified the kind of prosthetic rehabilitation. Removable prosthesis was chosen in 18 cases, while implant (or teeth)-supported rehabilitation was performed in 60 cases.
RESULTS: Authors correlated the kind of surgical reconstruction to the prosthetic rehabilitation performed. In the maxilla removable prosthesis was chosen in 8 cases, while implant supported rehabilitation was performed in 18 cases. In the mandible 10 cases were rehabilitated through a removable prosthesis and 42 through a teeth or implant supported prosthesis.
CONCLUSIONS: It is evident the need to perform a careful evaluation of the patient, in order to identify the best possible prosthetic rehabilitation.