We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
The International Journal of Prosthodontics



Forgotten password?


Int J Prosthodont 31 (2018), No. 3     8. May 2018
Int J Prosthodont 31 (2018), No. 3  (08.05.2018)

Page 228-235, doi:10.11607/ijp.5650, PubMed:29723316

Geometric Evaluation of the Effect of Prosthetic Rehabilitation on Facial Asymmetry in Patients with Unilateral Maxillectomy
Aswehlee, Amel M. / Hattori, Mariko / Elbashti, Mahmoud E. / Sumita, Yuka I. / Taniguchi, Hisashi
Purpose: This study aimed (1) to geometrically evaluate areas of facial asymmetry in patients with two different types of maxillectomy defect compared to a control group, (2) to geometrically evaluate the effect of an obturator prosthesis on facial asymmetry, and (3) to investigate the correlation between three-dimensional (3D) deviation values and number of missing teeth.
Materials and Methods: Facial data from 13 normal control participants and 26 participants with two types of maxillectomy defect (groups 1 and 2) were acquired with a noncontact 3D digitizer. Facial asymmetry was evaluated by superimposing a facial scan onto its mirror scan using 3D evaluation software. Facial scans with and without obturator prostheses were also superimposed to evaluate the obturator effect. The correlation between 3D deviation values and number of missing teeth was also evaluated. Statistical analyses were performed.
Results: Facial asymmetry was significantly different between the control group and each m axillectomy defect group (group 1: P < .0001 and P = .020 without and with obturator, respectively; group 2: P < .0001 for both conditions). There were no significant differences in asymmetry between groups 1 and 2 either without or with obturator (P = .457 and P = .980, respectively). There was a significant difference in the obturator effect between groups 1 and 2 (P = .038). 3D deviation values were positively correlated with number of missing teeth in group 1 (r = 0.594, P = .032), but not in group 2.
Conclusion: A noncontact 3D digitizer and 3D deviation assessment were effective for analyzing facial data of maxillectomy patients. Obturators were effective for improving facial deformities in these patients.