Comparative Assessment of Effectiveness of Various Fixation Methods for Auricular Prostheses

Area of Science:

• Reconstructive surgery
• Biomaterials science
• Otolaryngology

Background:

• Auricle defects cause functional and psychological distress, necessitating effective rehabilitation.
• Current options include surgical reconstruction or auricular prostheses fixed with adhesive or implants.
• Prosthetic rehabilitation is crucial for restoring psychosocial well-being.

Purpose of the Study:

• To compare the efficacy of auricular prostheses with adhesive fixation versus magnetic fixation on osseointegrated implants.
• To evaluate patient satisfaction and complication rates for both fixation methods.
• To determine the optimal prosthetic rehabilitation strategy for auricle defects.

Main Methods:

• A comparative study included 14 patients with auricle defects (traumatic or congenital).
• Group 1 (6 patients) used adhesive-fixed auricular prostheses.
• Group 2 (8 patients) used implant-retained auricular prostheses (magnetic or attachment fixation).

Main Results:

• No implant-related complications (osseointegration, wound healing) were observed in the implant-retained group (Group 2) over 6 months to 3 years.
• All patients reported high satisfaction with their treatment outcomes.
• Implant-retained prostheses were associated with less invasive procedures and shorter hospital stays.

Conclusions:

• Implant-retained auricular prostheses provide excellent retention and high patient satisfaction.
• Adhesive-fixed prostheses are associated with skin irritation, dermatitis, and prosthesis deformation.
• Implant-retained prostheses are a favorable treatment option for auricle defect restoration.