Maxillofacial prosthetic rehabilitation in the UK: a survey of maxillofacial prosthetists’ and technologists’ attitudes and opinions

Maxillofacial prostheses are constructed by maxillofacial prosthetists and technologists (MPTs), as an alternative treatment when maxillofacial defects cannot be surgically fulfilled. A questionnaire was conducted surveying 220 MPTs working in all UK maxillofacial units about their opinions, attitudes, and experience regarding several aspects related to maxillofacial silicone prostheses. Numbers and percentages of maxillofacial prostheses, their retention method, serviceability, reduced serviceability causes, and digital technologies (DT) used in constructing prostheses were analysed. Thousand hundred and ninety-three prostheses were constructed (42% ocular, 31% auricular, 13% orbital, 12% nasal, 1% composite, more than one facial prosthesis). Adhesives commonly retained orbital (48%) and nasal (45%) prostheses. Implant-retained bars commonly retained auricular prostheses (70%). Ocular prostheses were entirely retained by undercuts. Implant-retained prostheses remained serviceable for twice as long (19–24 months) as adhesive-retained prostheses (7–12 months). Causes for prosthesis replacement included colour changes (71%), poor maintenance (41%), and silicone tear (37%). Thirty-one percent of MPTs used DT computer software and programs for designing and constructing maxillofacial prostheses. In conclusion, adhesives, implant-retained bars and magnets are commonly used retentive methods. Prosthesis failure is caused mainly by colour change, poor maintenance, silicone tear and delamination. Different DTs are used by one-third of MPTs.