Clear acrylic resin device for orientation and placement of a small facial prosthesis

2000 ◽  
Vol 83 (6) ◽  
pp. 0656-0659 ◽  
Author(s):  
Trakol Mekayarajjananonth ◽  
Michael L. Huband ◽  
Luis R. Guerra
1979 ◽  
Vol 42 (3) ◽  
pp. 322-326 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barry Shipman ◽  
Jack Bader

2000 ◽  
Vol 83 (6) ◽  
pp. 656-659
Author(s):  
Trakol Mekayarajjananonth ◽  
Michael L. Huband ◽  
Luis R. Guerra

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
pp. 563-569
Author(s):  
Bárbara Sousa da Silva ◽  
Thaysa Cristina Batista de Mattos ◽  
Erika Akiko Moura Shiota ◽  
Sybilla Torres Dias ◽  
Cristiane Maria Brasil Leal ◽  
...  

A prótese bucomaxilofacial visa a reabilitação de pacientes que sofreram mutilações na face, restituindo estética e autoestima. Este trabalho visa relatar o caso clínico de um paciente reabilitado com prótese oculopalpebral após sofrer exenteração de órbita, decorrente de um carcinoma espinocelular em pálpebra inferior direita. Paciente, gênero masculino, 56 anos, procurou atendimento odontológico queixando-se de desconforto estético do rosto. Ao exame clínico foi observada ausência do globo ocular, pálpebras e arco superciliar do lado direito, por isto, foi planejada a confecção de uma prótese oculopalpebral. Foi realizada moldagem dos terços superior e médio da face, obteve-se o molde em alginato e, posteriormente, o modelo em gesso. Em seguida, foi confeccionado um globo ocular caracterizado em resina acrílica termopolimerizável. Posteriormente realizou-se, sobre o modelo de gesso, a escultura da área amputada utilizando-se plastilina e cera e após prova e ajustes no paciente, inclusão do conjunto modelo/escultura em mufla e contramufla, com posterior eliminação da peça esculpida. Foi selecionada a cor da pele do paciente e misturou-se uma base ao silicone, que foi incluído na mufla para prensagem. Após a vulcanização do silicone, foram realizados os acabamentos, caracterização e instalação da prótese. Na proservação o paciente relatou grande satisfação com a reconstituição da estética facial. Conclui-se que a prótese bucomaxilofacial é uma alternativa satisfatória para a reabilitação de pacientes que sofreram mutilações faciais, pois restabelece a estética facial, autoestima e convívio social.    Descritores: Prótese Maxilofacial; Olho Artificial; Reabilitação; Carcinoma de Células Escamosas. Referências Duncan BGF, Calhoun ME. Facial prostheses in the rehabilitation of burn patients. Nurse Life Care Planner. 2015;15(3):900-5. Vieira LM, Oguro P, Dias RB, Pimentel ML, Barretto MRP, Coto NP. Proposition of integrated electrical mechanism anda facial prosthesis for eyelid motion on prosthetic oculopalpebral rehabilitation: technical note. J. 2019; 35(2):659-65. Moss OB, Pinheiro BCL, Mendes TCC, Braga FP, Nichthauser B, Leal CMB. Reabilitação oral com prótese bucomaxilofacial em paciente pediátrica submetida à excisão de lesão neoplásica benigna em maxila. Arch Health Invest. 2019;8(11):706-10. Petsuksiri J, Frank SJ, Garden AS, Ang KK, Morrison WH, Chao KS, Rosenthal DI, Schwartz DL, Ahamad A, Esmaeli B. Outcomes after radiotherapy for squamous cell carcinoma of the eyelid. 2008;112(1):111-18. Dib LL, Oliveira JAP. Reabilitação Bucomaxilofacial - uso de próteses e implantes osseointegrados. In: Cardoso RJA, Gonçalves EAN. Odontologia: arte, ciência e técnica. 6 ed. São Paulo: Artes Médicas; 2002. Pinheiro BCL, De Mattos TCB, Dias ST, Braga FP, Leal CMB, Nichthauser B. Reabilitação com prótese ocular em paciente anoftálmico. Full Dent. Sci. 2020;11(42):98-103. Wondergem M, Lieben G, Bouman S, van den Brekel MW, Lohuis PJ. Patients' satisfaction with facial prostheses. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016;54(4):394-9. Lanzara R, Thakur A, Viswambaran M, Khattak A. Fabrication of ocular prosthesis with a digital customization technique - a case report. J Family Med Prim Care. 2019;8(3):1239-42. Brandão TB, Filho AJV, Batista VES, Ribeiro ACP, Nary Filho H, Chilvarquer I, et al. Assessment of treatment outcomes for facial prostheses in patients with craniofacial defects: A pilot retrospective study. J Prosthet Dent. 2017;118(2):235-41. Koyama S, Sasaki K, Hanawa S, Sato N. The potential of cohesive silicone for facial prosthetic use: a material property study and a clinical report. J Prosthodont. 2011;20(4):299-304. Soares LHS, Bello CV, Reis AKL, Nunes RR, Mason EM. Tumores malignos de pálpebra. Arq Bras Oftalmol. 2001;64(1):287-9. Grant GT, Aita-Holmes C, Liacouras P, Garnes J, Wilson WO Jr. Digital capture, design, and manufacturing of a facial prosthesis: Clinical report on a pediatric patient. J Prosthet Dent. 2015;114(1):138-41. Sohaib A, Amano K, Xiao K, Yates JM, Whitford C, Werger S. Colour quality of facial prostheses in additive manufacturing. Int J Adv Manuf Technol. 2018; 96(2):881-94. Veerareddy C, Nair KC, Reddy R. Simplified Technique for Orbital Prosthesis fabrication: a case report. J Prosthodont. 2012;21(1):561-68. Bellamy K, Limbert G, Waters MG, Middleton J. An elastomeric material for facial prostheses: synthesis, experimental and numerical testing aspects. 2003;24(27):5061-66. Papaspyrou G, Yildiz C, Bozzato V, Bohr C, Schneider M, Hecker D, Schick B, Al Kadah B. Prosthetic supply of facial defects: long-term experience and retrospective analysis on 99 patients. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2018;275(2):607-13. Chang TL, Garrett N, Roumanas E, Beumer J 3rd. Treatment satisfaction with facial prostheses. J Prosthet Dent. 2005;94(3):275-80.  Nomura T, Sato J, Matsuura M, Kawaguchi K, Sekiguchi R, Horie A, Seto K. Lightweight acrylic resin facial prosthesis for maxillofacial defects: a fabrication and retention method. J Prosthet Dent. 2013;110(4):326-30. Dings JPJ, Merkx MAW, de Clonie Maclennan-Naphausen MTP, van de Pol P, Maal TJJ, Meijer GJ. Maxillofacial prosthetic rehabilitation: A survey on the quality of life. J Prosthet Dent. 2018;120(5):780-86. Ariani N, Visser A, Teulings MR, Dijk M, Rahardjo TB, Vissink A, van der Mei HC. Efficacy of cleansing agents in killing microorganisms in mixed species biofilms present on silicone facial prostheses--an in vitro study. Clin Oral Investig. 2015;19(9):2285-93. Goiato MC, Pesqueira AA, dos Santos DM, Zavanelli AC, Ribeiro Pdo P. Color stability comparison of silicone facial prostheses following disinfection. J Prosthodont. 2009;18(3):242-44.  Jebreil K. Accetability of orbital prostheses. J Prosthet Dent. 1980;43(1):82-5.


1993 ◽  
Vol 70 (5) ◽  
pp. 447-448 ◽  
Author(s):  
James C. Lemon ◽  
Jack W. Martin ◽  
Peggy J. Wesley ◽  
Gordon E. King

2013 ◽  
Vol 110 (4) ◽  
pp. 326-330 ◽  
Author(s):  
Takayoshi Nomura ◽  
Junichi Sato ◽  
Masaro Matsuura ◽  
Koji Kawaguchi ◽  
Rei Sekiguchi ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Vaibhao Ishwar Shambharkar

ABSTRACT Midfacial defects developed due to partial or total maxillectomy surgeries performed to remove tumors in the oral or nasal cavity. Large midfacial defects usually restored with a facial prosthesis to restore esthetics, form and function. Retention of a large facial prosthesis is a major concern to the prosthodontist because of its size and weight. This clinical report describes magnet retained intraoral-extraoral combination prosthesis for a large midfacial defect. This article also describes a technique to fabricate a hollow light-weight acrylic resin framework supporting an overlying silicone layer for the facial prosthesis. How to cite this article Shambharkar VI. Technique to fabricate a Hollow facial Prosthesis for Lateral Midfacial Defect. Int J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2014;4(3):90-95.


Author(s):  
Marie-Thérèse Nicolas

An alternative to aqueous chemical fixation consists in immobilizing physically the specimen by freezing it as fast as possible without using any cryoprotectant. This Fast Freeze Fixation (FFF) followed by Freeze Substitution (FS) avoids osmotic artefacts due to the slow penetration of liquid chemical fixative. Associated with Immuno-Gold labeling (IGS), FFF-FS allows a more precise localization of antigens.Using the bioluminescent bacteria Vibrio harveyi, a comparison of IGS with an antibody directed against its luciferase (enzyme of the luminescent reaction) has been done after liquid chemical fixation versus FFFFS. This later technique, beside an expected improvement of the ultrastructure always shows a better preservation of antigenicity and a lower background. In the case of FFF-FS technique (Figure 3):–labeling in acrylic resin (LRWhite) is 2 to 4 fold more intense than in epoxy resin (Epon),–but the ultrastructure is always better in Epon.–but the ultrastructure is always better in Epon.–The addition of fixatives in the substitution medium, results in a decrease of labeling which is more important in the case of a mixture of fixatives than with osmium tetroxide alone; with one exception: the substitution with glutaraldehyde which produces a dramatic increase in the density of the labeling but also, at the same time, a swelling of the cells of about 30%.


2018 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 87-91
Author(s):  
Wesam E Badr ◽  
Hassan M Sakr ◽  
Muhammad A Masoud ◽  
Mohamed A Quassem

Polymers ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (8) ◽  
pp. 1234
Author(s):  
António Sérgio Silva ◽  
Aurora Carvalho ◽  
Pedro Barreiros ◽  
Juliana de Sá ◽  
Carlos Aroso ◽  
...  

Thermal and self-curing acrylic resins are frequently and versatilely used in dental medicine since they are biocompatible, have no flavor or odor, have satisfactory thermal qualities and polishing capacity, and are easy and fast. Thus, given their widespread use, their fracture resistance behavior is especially important. In this research work, we comparatively analyzed the fracture resistance capacity of thermo and self-curing acrylic resins in vitro. Materials and Methods: Five prosthesis bases were created for each of the following acrylic resins: Lucitone®, ProBase®, and Megacryl®, which were submitted to different forces through the use of the CS® Dental Testing Machine, usually mobilized in the context of fatigue tests. To this end, a point was defined in the center of the anterior edge of the aforementioned acrylic resin bases, for which the peak tended until a fracture occurred. Thermosetting resins were, on average, more resistant to fracture than self-curable resins, although the difference was not statistically significant. The thermosetting resins of the Lucitone® and Probase® brands demonstrated behavior that was more resistant to fracture than the self-curing homologues, although the difference was not statistically significant. Thermosetting resins tended to be, on average, more resistant to fracture and exhibited the maximum values for impact strength, compressive strength, tensile strength, hardness, and dimensional accuracy than self-curing resins, regardless of brand.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document