Statement of problem
A maxillofacial prosthesis represents an effective method of giving maxillofacial
defects a positive esthetic appearance with minimal risk. However, studies of complications
among prosthesis wearers are lacking.
The purpose of this cross-sectional study was to determine levels of patient satisfaction
with various maxillofacial prostheses and retention types, as measured through a survey
Material and methods
Patients treated at the Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center Craniofacial Prosthetics
Unit (CPU) since 2015 were included. They had been treated according to a standardized
protocol and answered a survey questionnaire package with the following sections:
demographics, frequency of prosthesis usage, and the Toronto Outcome Measure for Craniofacial
Prosthetics (TOMCP-27) survey addressing patient satisfaction. To be eligible for
this study, patients must have been more than 18 years of age, in possession of a
maxillofacial prosthesis, and received treatment at the Sunnybrook Health Sciences
Center CPU since 2015.
A total of 157 patients were eligible and contacted, of whom 51 agreed to participate
in the survey. The study population was overall extremely satisfied with their maxillofacial
prostheses. In 77.8% of the TOMCP-27 questions, the largest group of patients chose
the answer demonstrating the highest level of satisfaction. Of all prosthesis types
surveyed, patients with auricular prostheses reported the greatest rates of satisfaction,
with the entire group having selected answers corresponding to the highest levels
of overall satisfaction. However, patients with orbital prostheses were more likely
to experience varying degrees of dissatisfaction, with 72% of the highest reported
levels of dissatisfaction being from this prosthesis group. In addition, patients
with osseointegrated implant-retained prostheses reported higher satisfaction levels
with other retention methods, with the bar clasp group outperforming the magnetic
coupling retention group.
Patients experienced an excellent overall rate of satisfaction with their maxillofacial
prostheses. Future development should focus on the continued development of osseointegrated
methods, improved magnetic coupling, and improved prosthesis technology, especially
for orbital prostheses.