IMPORTANCE OF CAD/CAM TECHNOLOGIES IN ECTOPROSTHETICS OF THE MAXILLOFACIAL AREA (LITERATURE REVIEW)

 Relevance. In patients suffering from defects in the organs of the maxillofacial region, often the most acute problem is not so much the problem of dysfunction, but rather unsatisfactory aesthetics. The loss of a particular organ of the maxillofacial region leads in many cases to become  the cause of persistent disorders on the part of psychoemotional problems [1–3]. In the modern world, the face is the main "visiting card" of a person,  most attracting attention from the people around him. The presence of one  or another defect in the maxillofacial region forms a number of  psychological problems in the patient, causing a feeling of shame from his  inferior appearance.

Materials and methods. The literature analysis of the applied methods of ectoprosthetics in the maxillofacial region was carried out.

Results and discussion. Comparing the traditional and computer methods of making facial epitheses, one should note a common similarity – the  laboriousness of the process, which requires an excellent understanding of  the anatomy of the maxillofacial region, fluency in computer software.  Having analyzed a large amount of foreign literature, I would like to  emphasize that the success of the performed ectoprosthetics largely depends on a clear and complete visualization of the clinical picture as a whole, without focusing on a specific organ. This is the key condition for creating a harmonious aesthetics of the face and the entire appearance of the patient after the treatment as a whole. The restored harmonious appearance of the patient's face will allow for faster adaptation in society. Currently, it is not possible to unambiguously determine the best method. A decrease in the speed of production and the optional  availability of medical education, according to a number of authors [4, 5, 16, 18,  19], are the motive for the choice and widespread introduction of CAD/CAM technologies, while some scientists [28] doubt their effectiveness. However, it is worth remembering that the result of the treatment is important for the patient, not the method itself, and only this is the result of his final assessment. 

1. 1 Ciocca L., De Crescenzio F., Fantini M. et al. Int. J. Oral & Maxillofac. Surg. 2017;25:808–812.

2. 2 Chi-Mun Cheah, Chee-Kai Chua et al. Intergation of Laser Surface Digitizing with CAD/CAM Techniques for Developing Facial Prostheses. Part 1: Design and Fabrication of Prosthesis Replicas.

3. 3 Banu Karayazgan, Yumushan Gunay, Arzu Atay, Fuat Noyun. Facial Defects Restored With Extraoral Implant-Supported Prostheses.

4. 4 Marafon P.G., Camara Mattos B.S. et al. Int. J. Prosthodont. 2020;23:271–276.

5. 5 Ting Jiao, Fuqiang Zhang et al. Int. J. Prosthodont. 2017;17:460–463.

6. 6 Jing Qiu, Xiao-yu Gu, Yao-yang Xiong, Fu-qiang Zhang. Support Care Cancer. 2019;19:1055–1059.

7. 7 Banu Karayazgan-Saracoglu, Yumushan Gunay, Arzu Atay. J. Craniofac. Surg. 2009;20:1169–1172.

8. 8 Gursel Turgut, Bulent Sacak, Kazim Kiran, Lutfu Bas. J. Craniofac. Surg. 2019;20:321–325.

9. 9 Kurdyandskij V.YU. Ortopedicheskaya stomatologiya. Moscow, 1977.

10. 10 Zhi-hong Feng, Yan Dong, Shi-zu BAi et al. Int. J. Prosthodont. 2016;23:513–520.

11. 11 Fumi Yoshioka, Shogo Ozawa, Sachiko Okazaki et al. J. Prosthodont. 2015;19:598–600.

12. 12 Brasier S. Int. J. Prosthodont. 2013;16:435–441.

13. 13 Chi-Mun Cheah, Chee-Kai Chua et al. Int. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2021;16:543–548.

14. 14 Derya Germec-Cakan, Halil Ibrahim Canter, Burcu Nur. J. Craniofac. Surg. 2013;21:1393–1399.

15. 15 Holberg C., Schwenzer K., Mahaini L. et al. Angle Orthodont. 2016;76:605–611.

16. 16 Coward T., Scott B., Watson R. Int. J. Prosthodont. 2017;20:275–285.

17. 17 Sykes L., Parrott A., Owen P. et al. Int. J. Prosthodont. 2018;17:454–459.

18. 18 Liacouras P., Garnes J., Roman N. et al. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2017;105:78–82.

19. 19 Ciocca L., De Crescenzio F., Fantini M. et al. Comput. Meth. Biomechan. Biomed. Eng. 13(3):379–386.

20. 20 Worthington P., Branemark P.-I. Advanced Osteointegration Surgery: Applications in the Maxillofacial Region. Chicago, 1992.

21. 21 Goliato M. C., dos Santos D. M., de Carvalho Dekon S. F. et al. J. Craniofac. Surg. 2020;22:241–242.

22. 22 Giocca L., Fantini M., Marchetti C. et al. Support Care Cancer. 2016;18:723–728.

23. 23 Vegter F., Hage J.J. Cleft Palate Craniofac. J. 1998;35:379–395.

24. 24 Al Mardini M., Ercoli C., Graser G. N. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2005;94:195–198.

25. 25 Zhihong Feng, Yan Dong J., Yimin Zhao et al. Br. J. Oral Махillofac. Surg. 2016;48:105–109.

26. 26 Lin, Chua, Chou. Proceedings of the 20th Annual International Conference on IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology, 29 Oct. 1 Nov, HongKong. Hong Kong, 2018;5:2746–2749.

27. 27 Ciocca L., Mingucci R., Gassino G., Scotti R. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2017;98:339–343.

28. 28 Guofeng Wu, Yunpeng Bi, Bing Zhou et al. Int. J. Prosthodont. 2019;22:293–295.

29. 29 Kimoto K., Garret N.R. J. Oral Rehabil. 2001;34:201–205.

30. 30 Guofeng Wu, Bing Zhou, Yunpeng Bi, Yimin Zhao. Selective laser sintering technology for customized fabrication of facial prostheses October 2017.

31. 31 Fumi Yoshioka, Shogo Ozawa, Sachiko Okazaki, Yoshinobu Tanak. J. Prosthodont. 2020;19:598–600.