Patient-Centered Evaluation of Silicone Ocular Prostheses Fabricated by Two Different Techniques

Mohamed Y. Abdelfattah^{1, 2,} and Nouf Al Humayyani³

¹Assistant professor of prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Tanta University, Tanta, Egypt

²Assistant professor of Removable Prosthodontic, Faculty of Dentistry, Taif University, Taif, KSA

³Assistant professor of Fixed Prosthodontic, Faculty of Dentistry, Taif University, Taif, KSA

Cite this paper:
Mohamed Y. Abdelfattah and Nouf Al Humayyani. Patient-Centered Evaluation of Silicone Ocular Prostheses Fabricated by Two Different Techniques. International Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. 2023; 11(1):1-8. doi: 10.12691/ijcdr-11-1-1

Abstract

Aim: Assessment of the effect of prosthodontic rehabilitation with silicone ocular prostheses fabricated from two different techniques on patient satisfaction using a modified questionnaire Material and Methods: 14 participants grouped into two groups; Group A: Planned to receive conventional silicone ocular prosthesis and Group B: receiving silicone ocular prosthesis lined with PVC thermoplastic sheet (Sof-tray sheets). After 9 months of using the orbital prosthetic device, the patients replied to a 10 items survey including aesthetics, self-assurance, retention, awareness of the prosthesis, insertion and removal problems, prosthetic home cleaning, restriction of social events, distress, and inflammation of the soft tissues, and advising others to try this technique. Responses were conveyed into a modified 100-mm horizontal visual scale. Answers means were transferred into a % proportion to characterize the index of individual satisfaction. A Friedman trials were utilized to judge answers between the two groups. Results: Excellent satisfaction indexes were displayed for all questions by most of patients in both groups, regarding group (A),silicone ocular prosthesis without lining, the lowermost proportion was the awareness of the prosthetic device, and the maximum proportion was the easiness of prosthesis elimination from its position. For group (B), silicone ocular prosthesis with PVC lining, maximum proportion was the advising others to use this method of rehabilitation, and the lowermost proportion was the prostheses awareness. There were excellent improvements in group (B) compared to group (A) regarding tear resistance and fungal resistance. Statistically significant improvement in group (B) than group (A) (p> 0.05) regarding ease of prosthesis cleanup, inflammation of underlying soft tissues, and retention. The other variables showed no significant difference. Conclusions: Great rate of patient satisfaction displayed that ocular prostheses constructed from silicone alone(Group A) and silicone lined with PVC liner (Group B) are good methods for rehabilitation of patients with ocular defects. The advantages of PVC liner include improved fungal resistance, increased tear resistance

Keywords:
silicone PVC ocular prosthetic devices patient satisfaction

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

References:

[1]	M.Y. Abd El-Fattah, H.M. Rashad, N.A. Kashef, M.A. El Ebiary, Evaluation of two different reinforcing materials used with silicone auricular prostheses, Tanta Dental Journal, Volume 10, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 31-38.
[2]	Zhao J, Jiang X, Hanna E, Su SY, Moreno A, Gunn B, Frank SJ, Ferrarotto R, Ning J, Esmaeli B. Orbital and periocular complications in patients with sinonasal tumours with orbital invasion. Br J Ophthalmol. 2023 Jan 27: bjo-2022-322855.
[3]	Kiratli H, Koç İ. Orbital exenteration: Institutional review of evolving trends in indications and rehabilitation techniques. Orbit. 2018 Jun; 37(3): 179-186.
[4]	Gu XY, Chen XB, Jiao T, Zhang FQ, Jiang XQ. [Application of negative molds technology based on three-dimensional printing in digital maxillofacial prostheses]. Zhonghua Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2017 Jun 9; 52 (6): 336-341. Chinese.
[5]	Weisson EH, Fittipaldi M, Concepcion CA, Pelaez D, Grace L, Tse DT. Automated Noncontact Facial Topography Mapping, 3-Dimensional Printing, and Silicone Casting of Orbital Prosthesis. Am J Ophthalmol. 2020 Dec; 220: 27-36.
[6]	Tetteh S, Bibb RJ, Martin SJ. Maxillofacial prostheses challenges in resource constrained regions. Disabil Rehabil. 2019 Feb; 41 (3): 348-356.
[7]	Lemon JC, Martin JW, King GE. Modified technique for preparing a polyurethane lining for facial prostheses. J Prosthet Dent. 1992 Feb; 67 (2): 228-9.
[8]	An KN, Gonzalez JB, Chao EY. Standardization of a polyurethane elastomer for facial prostheses. J Prosthet Dent. 1980 Sep; 44 (3): 338-42.
[9]	Dugad JA, Dholam KP, Chougule AT. Vacuum form sheet as a guide for fabrication of orbital prosthesis. J Prosthet Dent. 2014 Aug; 112 (2): 390-2.
[10]	Hansen OG. New developments in PVC. Med Device Technol. 2008 Oct; 19 (6): 17-9. PMID: 18988543.
[11]	Kumar P, Singh SV, Aggarwal H, Chand P. Incorporation of a vacuum-formed polyvinyl chloride sheet into an orbital prosthesis pattern. J Prosthet Dent. 2015 Feb; 113 (2): 157-9.
[12]	Magnusson L, Ghosh R, Jensen KR, Göbel K, Wågberg J, Wallén S, Svensson A, Stavenheim R, Ahlström G. Quality of life of prosthetic and orthotic users in South India: a cross-sectional study. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2019 Mar 20; 17 (1): 50.
[13]	Atay A, Peker K, Günay Y, Ebrinç S, Karayazgan B, Uysal Ö. Assessment of health-related quality of life in Turkish patients with facial prostheses. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2013 Jan 26; 11: 11.
[14]	Chang TL, Garrett N, Roumanas E, Beumer J 3rd. Treatment satisfaction with facial prostheses. J Prosthet Dent. 2005 Sep; 94 (3): 275-80.
[15]	Gajdhar S, Gajdhar SK, Salakalakonda SR, Vasthare A. A modified technique for fabricating a mirror image wax pattern for an auricular prosthesis. J Prosthet Dent. 2015 Jan; 113 (1): 71-3.
[16]	Abdalqadir M, Faraj S, Azhdar B. An evaluation of a technique to improve the mechanical properties of maxillofacial silicone elastomers with zinc oxide nanoparticles. J Prosthet Dent. 2022 Sep; 128 (3): 531-538.
[17]	Jablonski RY, Veale BJ, Coward TJ, Keeling AJ, Bojke C, Pavitt SH, Nattress BR. Outcome measures in facial prosthesis research: A systematic review. J Prosthet Dent. 2021 Dec; 126 (6): 805-815.
[18]	Gallagher P, Desmond D. Measuring quality of life in prosthetic practice: benefits and challenges. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2007 Jun; 31 (2): 167-76.
[19]	Goiato MC, Pesqueira AA, Ramos da Silva C, Gennari Filho H, Micheline Dos Santos D. Patient satisfaction with maxillofacial prosthesis. Literature review. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2009 Feb; 62 (2): 175-80.
[20]	Rai SY, Guttal SS. Effect of intrinsic pigmentation on the tear strength and water sorption of two commercially available silicone elastomers. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2013 Mar; 13 (1): 30-5.