Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

Patient satisfaction with different types of craniofacial prostheses

Published:September 24, 2022DOI:


      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 questionnaire package.

      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.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Chrcanovic B.R.
        • Nilsson J.
        • Thor A.
        Survival and complications of implants to support craniofacial prosthesis: A systematic review.
        J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2016; 44: 1536-1552
        • Goiato M.C.
        • de Carvalho Dekon S.F.
        • de Faria Almeida D.A.
        • Sánchez D.M.I.K.
        • dos Santos D.M.
        • Pellizzer E.P.
        Patients’ Satisfaction After Surgical Facial Reconstruction or After Rehabilitation With Maxillofacial Prosthesis.
        J Craniofac Surg. 2011; 22: 766-769
        • Chang T.L.
        • Garrett N.
        • Roumanas E.
        • Beumer J.
        Treatment satisfaction with facial prostheses.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2005; 94: 275-280
        • Cobein M.V.
        • Coto N.P.
        • Junior O.C.
        • Lemos J.B.D.
        • Vieira L.M.
        • Pimentel M.L.
        • et al.
        Retention systems for extraoral maxillofacial prosthetic implants: a critical review.
        Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2017; 55: 763-769
        • Subramaniam S.S.
        • Breik O.
        • Cadd B.
        • Peart G.
        • Wiesenfeld D.
        • Heggie A.
        • et al.
        Long-term outcomes of craniofacial implants for the restoration of facial defects.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018 Jun 1; 47: 773-782
        • Papaspyrou G.
        • Yildiz C.
        • Bozzato V.
        • Bohr C.
        • Schneider M.
        • Hecker D.
        • et al.
        Prosthetic supply of facial defects: long-term experience and retrospective analysis on 99 patients.
        Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2018; 275: 607-613
        • Elledge R.
        • Chaggar J.
        • Knapp N.
        • Martin T.
        • White N.
        • Evriviades D.
        • et al.
        Craniofacial implants at a single centre 2005-2015: retrospective review of 451 implants.
        Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2017; 55: 242-245
        • Wondergem M.
        • Lieben G.
        • Bouman S.
        • Brekel MWM van den
        • Lohuis P.J.F.M.
        Patients’ satisfaction with facial prostheses.
        Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016; 54: 394-399
        • Curi M.M.
        • Oliveira M.F.
        • Molina G.
        • Cardoso C.L.
        • Oliveira L.D.G.
        • Branemark P.I.
        • et al.
        Extraoral Implants in the Rehabilitation of Craniofacial Defects: Implant and Prosthesis Survival Rates and Peri-Implant Soft Tissue Evaluation.
        J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012; 70: 1551-1557
        • Moore P.
        • Grinsell D.
        • Lyons B.
        • Hewson I.
        Outcomes of dental and craniofacial osseointegrated implantation in head and neck cancer patients.
        Head Neck. 2019; 41: 3290-3298
        • Kantola R.
        • Sivén M.
        • Kurunmäki H.
        • Tolvanen M.
        • Vallittu P.K.
        • Kemppainen P.
        Laser Doppler imaging of skin microcirculation under fiber-reinforced composite framework of facial prosthesis.
        Acta Odontol Scand. 2014; 72: 106-112
        • Anderson J.D.
        • Johnston D.A.
        • Haugh G.S.
        • Kiat-Amnuay S.
        • Gettleman L.
        The Toronto outcome measure for craniofacial prosthetics: reliability and validity of a condition-specific quality-of-life instrument.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2013; 28: 453-460
        • Anderson J.D.
        • Szalai J.P.
        The Toronto outcome measure for craniofacial prosthetics: a condition-specific quality-of-life instrument.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2003; 18: 531-538
        • de Oliveira F.M.
        • Salazar-Gamarra R.
        • Öhman D.
        • Nannmark U.
        • Pecorari V.
        • Dib L.L.
        Quality of life assessment of patients utilizing orbital implant-supported prostheses.
        Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2018; 20: 438-443
        • Karakoca Nemli S.
        • Aydin C.
        • Yilmaz H.
        • Sarisoy S.
        • Kasko Y.
        Retrospective Study of Implant-Retained Orbital Prostheses: Implant Survival and Patient Satisfaction.
        J Craniofac Surg. 2010; 21: 1178-1183
        • Smolarz-Wojnowska A.
        • Raithel F.
        • Gellrich N.C.
        • Klein C.
        Quality of Implant Anchored Craniofacial and Intraoral Prostheses: Patient’s Evaluation.
        J Craniofac Surg. 2014; 25: e202-e207
        • Jongerius C.
        • Hessels R.S.
        • Romijn J.A.
        • Smets E.M.A.
        • Hillen M.A.
        The Measurement of Eye Contact in Human Interactions: A Scoping Review.
        J Nonverbal Behav. 2020; 44: 363-389
        • Camm A.J.
        • Fox K.A.A.
        Strengths and weaknesses of ‘real-world’ studies involving non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants.
        Open Heart. 2018; 5: e000788
        • Irish J.
        • Sandhu N.
        • Simpson C.
        • Wood R.
        • Gilbert R.
        • Gullane P.
        • et al.
        Quality of life in patients with maxillectomy prostheses.
        Head Neck. 2009; 31: 813-821