Retention systems for extraoral maxillofacial prosthetic implants: a critical review

We describe the techniques available for retention of implant-supported prostheses: bar-clips, O-rings, and magnets. We present reported preferences and, although this is limited by the heterogeneity of methods used and patients studied, we hope we have identified the best retention systems for maxillofacial prosthetic implants. If practitioners know the advantages and disadvantages of each system, they can choose the most natural and comfortable prosthesis. We searched the PubMed and Scopus databases, and restricted our search to papers published 2001-13. MeSH terms used were Maxillofacial prosthesis and Craniofacial prosthesis OR Craniofacial prostheses. We found a total of 2630 papers, and after duplicates had been removed we analysed the rest and found 25 papers for review. Of these, 12 were excluded because they were case reports or non-systematic reviews. Of the remaining 13, 10 described group analyses and seemed appropriate to find practitioner's choices, as cited in the abstract (n=1611 prostheses). Three papers did not mention the type of prosthetic connection used, so were excluded. The most popular choices for different conditions were analysed, though the sites and retention systems were not specified in all 10 papers. The bar-clip system was the most used in auricular (6/10 papers) and nasal prostheses (4/10). For the orbital region, 6/10 favoured magnets. Non-osseointegrated mechanical or adhesive retention techniques are the least expensive and have no contraindications. When osseointegrated implants are possible, each facial region has a favoured system. The choice of system is influenced by two factors: standard practice and the abilities of the maxillofacial surgeon and maxillofacial prosthetist.