Ho-Beom Kwon; Jai-Bong Lee; Soon-Ho Yim

doi:10.4047/jkap.2010.48.1.41

Journal List > J Korean Acad Prosthodont > v.48(1) > 1034642

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Kwon, Lee, and Yim: Patients’ satisfaction on the obturators with different extension heights into defects after maxillectomy

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

J Korean Acad Prosthodont 2010;48(1):41-47.

Published online: 18 December 2010

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4047/jkap.2010.48.1.41

Patients’ satisfaction on the obturators with different extension heights into defects after maxillectomy

Ho-Beom Kwon, MSD, DDS, PhD¹, Jai-Bong Lee, MSD, DDS, PhD¹, Soon-Ho Yim, DDS, MSD, PhD^2,^∗

^¹Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University

^²Department of Prosthodontics, The Institute of Oral Health Sciences, Samsung Medical Center, College of medicine, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, Korea

∗Corresponding Author: Soon-Ho Yim Department of Prosthodontics, The Institute of Oral Health Sciences, Samsung Medical Center, College of medicine, Sungkyunkwan University, 50 Irwon-dong, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, 135-710, Korea +82 31 412 5878: e-mail, koprosth@unitel.co.kr

Received 15 December 20094 January 2009 Accepted 8 January 2010

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to compare the functional abilities of the low bulb obturators with those of high bulb obturators in terms of patients’ evaluation.

Material and methods

This study included 11 maxillectomy patients who underwent postoperative prosthodontic rehabilitations. Two obturators of the same design except for different bulb heights, were fabricated for each of the maxillectomy patient. After two months of alternate use, the functions of the obturators were measured by investigating the patients’ subjective evaluations in terms of convenience, speech, nasality, leakage, and mastication and identifying their preferred prostheses. Wilcoxon signed rank test was used as a statistical method (P < .05).

Results

There were no significant differences in patient evaluations of low and high bulb obturators (P >.05). And patients’ preferences varied.

Conclusion

In extreme situation such as in mouth opening limitation, the use of low bulb obturators can be recommended and result in comparable speech function to that of obturators with high lateral walls. (J Korean Acad Prosthodont 2010;48:41-7)

Keywords: Maxillectomy, Obturator, Preference, Obturator height

REFERENCES

1.Lang BR., Bruce RA. Presurgical maxillectomy prosthesis. J Prosthet Dent. 1967. 17:613–9.

2.Desjardins RP. Obturator prosthesis design for acquired maxillary defects. J Prosthet Dent. 1978. 39:424–35.

3.Robinson JE. Prosthetic treatment after surgical removal of the maxilla and floor of the orbit. J Prosthet Dent. 1963. 13:178–84.

4.Beumer J., Curtis TA., Marunick MT. Maxillofacial Rehabilitation: Prosthodontic and Surgical Considerations. St. Louis: Elsevier;1996. p. 225–84.

5.Kornblith AB., Zlotolow IM., Gooen J., Huryn JM., Lerner T., Strong EW., Shah JP., Spiro RH., Holland JC. Quality of life of maxillectomy patients using an obturator prosthesis. Head Neck. 1996. 18:323–34.

6.Aramany MA., Drane JB. Effect of nasal extension sections on the voice quality of acquired cleft palate patients. J Prosthet Dent. 1972. 27:194–202.

7.Adisman K. Removable partial dentures for jaw defects of the maxilla and mandible. Dent Clin North Am. 1962. 849–70.

8.Ackerman AJ. The prosthetic management of oral and facial defects following cancer surgery. J Prosthet Dent. 1955. 5:413–32.

9.Oki M., Iida T., Mukohyama H., Tomizuka K., Takato T., Taniguchi H. The vibratory characteristics of obturators with different bulb height and form designs. J Oral Rehabil. 2006. 33:43–51.

10.Zarb GA. The maxillary resection and its prosthetic replacement. J Prosthet Dent. 1967. 18:268–81.

11.Brown KE. Peripheral consideration in improving obturator retention. J Prosthet Dent. 1968. 20:176–81.

12.Sharry JJ. Extensions of partial denture treatment. Dent Clin North Am. 1962. 821–35.

13.Kobayashi M., Oki M., Ozawa S., Inoue T., Mukohyama H., Takato T., Ohyama T., Taniguchi H. Vibration analysis of obturator prostheses with different bulb height designs. J Med Dent Sci. 2002. 49:121–8.

14.Kim HW., Kim CW., Kim YS. A clinical study on the satisfaction of complete denture patients. J Korean Acad Prosthodont. 1995. 33:440–51.

15.Tanaka H. Speech patterns of edentulous patients and morphology of the palate in relation to phonetics. J Prosthet Dent. 1973. 29:16–28.

16.Petrovic ´A. Speech sound distortions caused by changes in complete denture morphology. J Oral Rehabil. 1985. 12:69–79.

17.Oral K., Aramany MA., McWilliams BJ. Speech intelligibility with the buccal flange obturator. J Prosthet Dent. 1979. 41:323–8.

18.Lee SW., Chung MK. Factors influencing paitent satisfaction with complete dentures. J Korean Acad Prosthodont. 2005. 43:633–49.

19.Silverman S., Silverman SI., Silverman B., Garfinkel L. Self-image and its relation to denture acceptance. J Prosthet Dent. 1976. 35:131–41.

20.Barenthin I. Dental health status and dental satisfaction. Int J Epidemiol. 1977. 6:73–9.

21.Kim HW., Kim CW., Kim YS. A clinical study of the satisfaction of complete denture patients. J Korean Acad Prosthodont. 1995. 33:440–52.

22.Langer A., Michman J., Seifert I. Factors influencing satisfaction with complete dentures in geriatric patients. J Prosthet Dent. 1961. 11:1019–31.

23.Carlsson GE., Otterland A., Wennstro ¨ m A., Odont D. Patient factors in appreciation of complete dentures. J Prosthet Dent. 1967. 17:322–8.

Fig. 1.

The mean scores and standard deviations of patients’ satisfaction on the convenience in use, retention, stability and irritating feeling with the H type and L type obturators.

Fig. 2.

The mean scores and standard deviations of patients’ satisfaction on the communication level, voice change, pronunciation, and hypernasality with H type and L type obturators.

Fig. 3.

The mean scores and standard deviations of patients’ satisfaction on leakage of liquid, leakage of solid food and mastication with H type and L type obturators.

Fig. 4.

Patients’ preferences of obturator type according to age.

Fig. 5.

Patients’ preferences on obturator type according to sex.

Table I.

Clinical data of maxillectomy patients

Patient number	Age	Sex	Diagnosis	Site	Operation	Aramany Classification
1	52	M	squamous cell carcinoma	Right maxillary sinus	total maxillectomy	Class II
3	59	M	squamous cell carcinoma	Right maxilla	partial maxillectomy	Class VI
4	70	M	squamous cell carcinoma	Left maxilla	total maxillectomy	Class II
5	54	M	squamous cell carcinoma	Right maxilla	total maxillectomy	Class II
8	52	M	squamous cell carcinoma	Right maxilla	total maxillectomy	Class I
9	46	M	adenoid cystic carcinoma	Right maxilla	total maxillectomy	Class II
2	72	F	squamous cell carcinoma	Left maxillary sinus	total maxillectomy	Class II
6	42	F	mucoepidermoid carcinoma	Left maxilla	total maxillectomy	Class II
7	28	F	osteoblastoma	Right maxillary sinus	partial maxillectomy	Class II
10	48	F	squamous cell carcinoma	Left maxilla	partial maxillectomy	Class II
11	29	F	adenoid cystic carcinoma	Left maxilla	partial maxillectomy	Class I

Table II.

Questionnaire used in the patients’ interview

Number	Questions
1	폐쇄장치를 구강 내에 위치시키는 과정은 얼마나 어려웠 습니까?
2	폐쇄장치는구강내에서얼마나잘유지되었습니까?
3	폐쇄장치는구강내에서얼마나잘안정되었습니까?
4	폐쇄장치를구강내에위치시켰을때얼마나이물감이느 껴졌습니까?
5	폐쇄장치를 구강 내에 위치시키고 다른사람과 의사소통 할때얼마나어려웠습니까?
6	폐쇄장치를 구강 내에 위치시키고 목소리가 수술 이전과 얼마나달라졌다고느꼈습니까?
7	폐쇄장치를 구강 내에 위치시키고 단어를 발음하기가 얼 마나어려웠습니까?
8	폐쇄장치를 구강 내에 위치시키고 얼마나 콧소리가 많이 난다고느꼈습니까?
9	폐쇄장치를위치시키고음료수 (물, 국물, 음료수등)를마 실때얼마나코로누출되었습니까?
10	폐쇄장치를 위치시키고 음식물 섭취 시 (빵, 밥, 고기, 국 수, 야채등) 얼마나코로누출되었습니까?
11	폐쇄장치를 위치시키고 음식물을 씹는 것은 얼마나 어려 웠습니까?

Table III.

Patients’ choices on the type of obturators and their reasons

Patient	Choice	Reason
1	H type	better pronunciation, less leakage
2	L type	convenience and comfort
3	L type	convenience
4	L type	convenience
5	No choice	clear pronunciation with high bulb obturator
6	H type	better function
7	No choice	high bulb obturator had better function and low bulb obtu rator had convenience
8	No choice	high bulb obturator had better function and low bulb obtu rator had convenience
9	L type	convenience
10	H type	less leakage
11	H type	less leakage

TOOLS

Similar articles