Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2022; 16(01): 80-95
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1731839
Original Article

PEEK versus Metallic Attachment-Retained Obturators for Patient Satisfaction: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Mohamed Yahia Sharaf
1   Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Menoufia, Menoufia, Egypt
,
Asharaf Email Eskander
2   Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Oral and Dental Medicine, University of Cairo, Cairo, Egypt
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective The aim of the study was patients’ satisfaction evaluation and radiographic evaluation of the terminal abutments of attachment-retained maxillary obturators with metal framework versus milled polyetheretherketone (PEEK) framework in the management of maxillectomy cases.

Materials and Methods Eighteen participants were randomly divided into three parallel groups (n = 6). Participants of the PEEK group received attachment-retained obturators with milled PEEK framework, the metal group received an attachment-retained obturator with a metallic framework, and the conventional group received conventional clasp-retained obturators with a metallic framework (Control group). The evaluation included was radiographic evaluation and patients’ satisfaction in this study included two scales—”The Obturator Functioning Scale” and “The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Head and Neck 35” using one-way ANOVA test.

Results Both PEEK and metal groups showed a statistically significant lower mean bone loss (p <0.050) compared with the conventional group during all follow-up periods. There is no statistically significant difference between the PEEK and metal groups during all follow-up periods. Regarding patient satisfaction, both the PEEK and metal groups showed a statistically significant decrease score (p <0.050) compared with the conventional group in various aspects of patients’ satisfaction scales as satisfaction with the look and difficulty of talking to the public, and noticeable clasps. In comparison, the PEEK group showed a statistically significant decrease score (p <0.050) than the metal group with respect to satisfaction with the look along all follow-up periods.

Conclusions PEEK attachment-retained maxillary definitive obturators could be considered a promising treatment modality for patients with acquired maxillary defects with regard to esthetics and satisfaction.

Keywords

attachment - maxillectomy - obturator - patient satisfaction - PEEK


Publication History

Article published online:
23 November 2021

© 2021. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Private Ltd
A-12, Second Floor, Sector -2, NOIDA -201301, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Rieger J, Wolfaardt J, Seikaly H, Jha N. Speech outcomes in patients rehabilitated with maxillary obturator prostheses after maxillectomy: a prospective study. Int J Prosthodont 2002; 15 (02) 139-144
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Dhiman R, Arora V, Kotwal N. Rehabilitation of a rhinocerebral mucormycosis patient. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2007; 7 (02) 88
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Kreissl ME, Heydecke G, Metzger MC, Schoen R. Zygoma implant-supported prosthetic rehabilitation after partial maxillectomy using surgical navigation: a clinical report. J Prosthet Dent 2007; 97 (03) 121-128
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Rilo B, Dasilva JL, Ferros I, Mora MJ, Santana U. A hollow-bulb interim obturator for maxillary resection. A case report. J Oral Rehabil 2005; 32 (03) 234-236
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Beumer J, Curtis TA, Marunick M. Maxillofacial rehabilitation:Prosthodontic and surgical considerations. 1st ed. St Louis; Ishiyaku Euro-America: 1996. 225–284
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Okay DJ, Genden E, Buchbinder D, Urken M. Prosthodontic guidelines for surgical reconstruction of the maxilla: a classification system of defects. J Prosthet Dent 2001; 86 (04) 352-363
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Etienne OM, Taddei CA. Use of bar-clip attachments to enhance the retention of a maxillofacial prosthetic obturator: a clinical report. J Oral Rehabil 2004; 31 (06) 618-621
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Nekora-Azak A, Evlioglu G, Ozdemir-Karataş M, Keskin H. Use of biofunctional prosthetic system following partial maxillary resection: a clinical report. J Oral Rehabil 2005; 32 (09) 693-695
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Keyf F. Obturator prostheses for hemimaxillectomy patients. J Oral Rehabil 2001; 28 (09) 821-829
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Ortegon SM, Martin JW, Lewin JS. A hollow delayed surgical obturator for a bilateral subtotal maxillectomy patient: a clinical report. J Prosthet Dent 2008; 99 (01) 14-18
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Parel SM, Brånemark PI, Ohrnell LO, Svensson B. Remote implant anchorage for the rehabilitation of maxillary defects. J Prosthet Dent 2001; 86 (04) 377-381
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Habib BH, Driscoll CF. Fabrication of a closed hollow obturator. J Prosthet Dent 2004; 91 (04) 383-385
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Blair FM, Hunter NR. The hollow box maxillary obturator. Br Dent J 1998; 184 (10) 484-487
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Jacob RF. Clinical management of the dentate maxillectomy. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak 2011; 21 (05) 311-314
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Walter J. Obturators for acquired palatal defects. Dent Update 2005; 32 (05) 277-280 283–284
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Prakash V, Gupta R. Rehabilitation of a hemimaxillectomy patient with innovative interim obturator prosthesis: a clinical report. J Clin Diagn Res 2010; (04) 2125-2128
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Mohamed Usman JA, Ayappan A, Ganapathy D, Nasir NN. Oromaxillary prosthetic rehabilitation of a maxillectomy patient using a magnet retained two-piece hollow bulb definitive obturator: a clinical report. Case Rep Dent 2013; 2013: 190180
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Roumanas ED, Nishimura RD, Davis BK. Beumer J III. Clinical evaluation of implants retaining edentulous maxillary obturator prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 1997; 77 (02) 184-190
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Meenakshi A, Shah D. The obturator prostheses for maxillectomy. SRM J Res Dent Sci 2012; 3: 193-197
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Sharma AB, Beumer III J. Reconstruction of maxillary defects: the case for prosthetic rehabilitation. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2005; 63 (12) 1770-1773
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Raja HZ, Saleem MN. Gaining retention, support and stability of a maxillary obturator. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak 2011; 21 (05) 311-314
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Jansma J, Raghoebar GM, Batenburg RH, Stellingsma C, van RP Oort. Bone grafting of cleft lip and palate patients for placement of endosseous implants. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 1999; 36 (01) 67-72
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Esser E, Wagner W. Dental implants following radical oral cancer surgery and adjuvant radiotherapy. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1997; 12 (04) 552-557
    Google Scholar
  • 24 Brogniez V, Lejuste P, Pecheur A, Reychler H. Dental prosthetic reconstruction of osseointegrated implants placed in irradiated bone. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1998; 13 (04) 506-512
    Google Scholar
  • 25 Eckert SE, Desjardins RP, Keller EE, Tolman DE. Endosseous implants in an irradiated tissue bed. J Prosthet Dent 1996; 76 (01) 45-49
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Aramany MA. Basic principles of obturator design for partially edentulous patients. Part I: classification. J Prosthet Dent 1978; 40 (05) 554-557
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Aramany MA. Basic principles of obturator design for partially edentulous patients. Part II: Design principles. 1978 [classical article]. J Prosthet Dent 2001; 86 (06) 562-568
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Taylor TD, Gerrow JD, Brudvik JS. Resin-bonded components for maxillofacial prosthesis construction: a clinical trial. J Prosthet Dent 1988; 59 (03) 334-339
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Murat S, Gurbuz A, Isayev A, Dokmez B, Cetin U. Enhanced retention of a maxillofacial prosthetic obturator using precision attachments: Two case reports. Eur J Dent 2012; 6 (02) 212-217
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Sharaf MY, Eskander AE, Ibrahim SI. Evaluation of patients satisfaction of attachment retained versus clasp retained obturators in unilateral total maxillectomy (RCT).. Egypt Dent J 2018; 64 (01) 93-102
    Google Scholar
  • 31 Eskander AE, Dahaba MA. Attachment-retained versus clasp retained definitive obturators in acquired maxillary defects. Cairo Dental J 2014; 30 (01) 1-8
    Google Scholar
  • 32 Grossmann Y, Madjar D. Resin bonded attachments for maxillary obturator retention: a clinical report. J Prosthet Dent 2004; 92 (03) 229-232
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Depprich R, Naujoks C, Lind D. et al. Evaluation of the quality of life of patients with maxillofacial defects after prosthodontic therapy with obturator prostheses. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2011; 40 (01) 71-79
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Hahnel S, Wieser A, Lang R, Rosentritt M. Biofilm formation on the surface of modern implant abutment materials. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015; 26 (11) 1297-1301
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Noiset O, Schneider YJ, Marchand-Brynaert J. Adhesion and growth of CaCo2 cells on surface-modified PEEK substrata. J Biomater Sci Polym Ed 2000; 11 (07) 767-786
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Ohl A, Schröder K, Keller D. et al. Chemical micropatterning of polymeric cell culture substrates using low-pressure hydrogen gas discharge plasmas. J Mater Sci Mater Med 1999; 10 (12) 747-754
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Tetelman ED, Babbush CA. A new transitional abutment for immediate aesthetics and function. Implant Dent 2008; 17 (01) 51-58
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Santing HJ, Meijer HJ, Raghoebar GM, Özcan M. Fracture strength and failure mode of maxillary implant-supported provisional single crowns: a comparison of composite resin crowns fabricated directly over PEEK abutments and solid titanium abutments. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2012; 14 (06) 882-889
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Bayer S, Komor N, Kramer A, Albrecht D, Mericske-Stern R, Enkling N. Retention force of plastic clips on implant bars: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012; 23 (12) 1377-1384
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Tannous F, Steiner M, Shahin R, Kern M. Retentive forces and fatigue resistance of thermoplastic resin clasps. Dent Mater 2012; 28 (03) 273-278
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Stawarczyk B, Eichberger M, Uhrenbacher J, Wimmer T, Edelhoff D, Schmidlin PR. Three-unit reinforced polyetheretherketone composite FDPs: influence of fabrication method on load-bearing capacity and failure types. Dent Mater J 2015; 34 (01) 7-12
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Chen C, Ren W, Gao L. et al. Function of obturator prosthesis after maxillectomy and prosthetic obturator rehabilitation. Rev Bras Otorrinolaringol (Engl Ed) 2016; 82 (02) 177-183
    Google Scholar
  • 43 Ariani N, Visser A, van Oort RP. et al. Current state of craniofacial prosthetic rehabilitation. Int J Prosthodont 2013; 26 (01) 57-67
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Mittal M, Sharma R, Kalra A, Sharma P. Form, Function, and Esthetics in Prosthetically Rehabilitated Maxillary Defects. J Craniofac Surg 2018; 29 (01) e8-e12
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Goiato MC, Pesqueira AA, Ramos da Silva C, Gennari Filho H, Micheline Dos Santos D. Patient satisfaction with maxillofacial prosthesis. Literature review. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2009; 62 (02) 175-180
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Kornblith AB, Zlotolow IM, Gooen J. et al. Quality of life of maxillectomy patients using an obturator prosthesis. Head Neck 1996; 18 (04) 323-334
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Bjordal K, Hammerlid E, Ahlner-Elmqvist M. et al. Quality of life in head and neck cancer patients: validation of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-H&N35. J Clin Oncol 1999; 17 (03) 1008-1019
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar