Masticatory performance and oral health‐related quality of life in edentulous maxillectomy patients: A cross‐sectional study to compare implant‐supported obturators and conventional obturators

• Published in: Clinical oral implants research Vol. 31; no. 5; pp. 405 - 416
• Main Authors: Buurman, Doke J. M., Speksnijder, Caroline M., Engelen, Britt H. B. T., Kessler, Peter
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Denmark Wiley Subscription Services, Inc 01-05-2020; John Wiley and Sons Inc
• Subjects: Bone implants; Chewing; Cross-Sectional Studies; dental implant; Dental Implants; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Dentistry; Food intake; Humans; Jaw; Mastication; Maxilla; maxillary defect; maxillofacial reconstruction; Medical tests; midfacial defect; obturator; Oral Health; Oral hygiene; Original Research; Palatal Obturators; Prostheses; Prosthetics; Quality of Life; Questionnaires; Rehabilitation; Retention; Surgical implants; mastication; midfacial defect; dental implant; maxillary defect; obturator; maxillofacial reconstruction; quality of life
• ISSN: 0905-7161; 1600-0501
• DOI: 10.1111/clr.13577

Objective
The aim of this cross‐sectional study was to compare the masticatory performance and oral health‐related quality of life (OHRQoL) of edentulous maxillectomy patients with and without implant‐supported obturator prostheses.
Material and methods
Nineteen edentulous maxillectomy patients with completed prosthetic obturator treatment in the upper jaw participated in this study. In nine patients, the obturator prosthesis was supported by implants in the remaining bone of the midface and/or skull base to improve retention. Masticatory performance was measured objectively by the mixing ability test (MAT) and subjectively by three OHRQoL questionnaires: (a) the Oral Health Impact Profile for EDENTulous people (OHIP‐EDENT), (b) the Obturator Function Scale (OFS), and (c) the Dutch Liverpool Oral Rehabilitation Questionnaire version 3 (LORQv3‐NL). The independent t test and the Mann–Whitney U test were used to test for differences in outcomes of patients with and without implant‐retention of their obturator prostheses.
Results
Patients with implant‐supported obturator prostheses had significantly better masticatory and oral function, reported fewer chewing difficulties, and had less discomfort during food intake than did patients with a conventional obturator.
Conclusion
Supporting prosthetic obturators after maxillectomy with implants improve oral functioning, chewing, and eating comfort. This treatment modality is a viable technique to improve the functionality of prosthetic rehabilitation in patients who have undergone maxillectomy.