An Alternative Prosthetic Approach for Rehabilitation of Two Edentulous Maxillectomy Patients: Clinical Report

Yenisey M., Külünk Ş., Kaleli N.

Journal of Prosthodontics, vol.26, no.5, pp.483-488, 2017 (SCI-Expanded) identifier identifier

  • Publication Type: Article / Article
  • Volume: 26 Issue: 5
  • Publication Date: 2017
  • Doi Number: 10.1111/jopr.12617
  • Journal Name: Journal of Prosthodontics
  • Journal Indexes: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus
  • Page Numbers: pp.483-488
  • Keywords: Maxillectomy, obturator prosthesis, oronasal separation
  • Ondokuz Mayıs University Affiliated: Yes


Obturator prosthesis is a common treatment method for maxillectomy patients for maintaining their oronasal separation and resuming their social lives. After tumor resection, the remaining anatomical structures have a significant effect on prosthesis retention. The present study describes the rehabilitation of two maxillectomy patients after cancer surgery using a prosthesis consisting of a denture and a special retentive obturator that is positioned in the anatomical undercuts of the nasal cavity. These patients have undergone total and subtotal maxillectomy surgery after the diagnosis of squamous cell carcinoma. The systemic and local health status of the total maxillectomy patient was not suitable for zygomatic implant surgery. Only one osseointegrated dental implant was placed into the left maxillary tuberosity area in the subtotal maxillectomy patient. In addition, the quality, vertical height, and horizontal width of the remaining bone structures in the maxilla limited the use of osseointegrated dental implants. Mechanical prosthesis retention was provided using a multiunit retentive mechanism composed of an orthodontic forsus fatigue resistant device (OFFRD), two Herbst appliances, and an acrylic piece associated with healthy keratinized mucosa. The OFFRD could easily apply a consistent force and push the acrylic pieces toward the retentive undercut under the control of the two Herbst appliances. Two OFFRD units in different directions were designed for the total maxillectomy patient, while only one OFFRD unit was placed on the opposite side of the osseointegrated implant in the subtotal maxillectomy patient. A sufficient retention was obtained for both patients. The patients were satisfied, and no major complications were observed in periodic controls.