87 Oral functioning in maxillectomy patients 4 Introduction Ablative cancer surgery, extended resection of benign lesions, or trauma involving the maxilla will result in complex three-dimensional defects in the region of the upper jaw and midface. Reconstruction of these defects is a major challenge for both surgeons and prosthodontists [1-3]. Researchers have presented valid arguments in choosing the best reconstruction and rehabilitation method for maxillectomy patients, based on parameters such as quality of life (QoL) and functional outcomes [4-7]. Implant-supported obturation represents an alternative for surgical reconstruction of defects where the orbital floor is intact and no substantial loss of soft tissues exists [3, 8, 9]. The advantages of implantsupported obturation include a shorter treatment period, no need for extensive reconstructive surgery with donor and recipient site morbidity, reduced posttreatment morbidity, and lower costs [8]. Disadvantages of prosthetic obturation include nasal leakage, cleaning, and constant prosthetic refinement [10]. Regardless of the rehabilitation route, defects that comprise a significant part of the dental alveolus, require dental rehabilitation to allow for optimal mastication and dental appearance [3]. Regarding mastication, comparative studies between surgical reconstruction and obturation seem to favour surgical reconstruction, especially in patients with larger maxillary defects [11-13]. At the same time, QoLresearch shows equivalent results for both options[14-17]. To our knowledge no studies are available comparing masticatory performance between surgicallyreconstructed and implant-supported prosthetic obturation. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare masticatory performance and patient reported eating ability of patients with implant supported obturators and patients with surgically reconstructed maxillae.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw