Evaluation of Two Different Reinforcing Materials Used with Silicone Auricular Prostheses

Abstract

The demand for prosthetically restoring lost facial parts and tissues congenitally or due to trauma , tumors or disease is dramatically increasing. (Lewis and Castlebery 1980)

Restoration of the facial defects is a difficult challenge for both the surgeon and the prosthodontist. Both surgical reconstruction and prosthetic restoration have distinct limitations. ( Beumer et al., 1996)

The problems in surgical reconstruction have centered around the procurement of adequate substitute frame work . This frame work has been obtained by the use of homograft or autograft cartilage commonly from the opposite ear or costal cartilage . Recently , synthetic materials have been used e.g. Medpor porous polyethylene implants. (Lawrence et al., 1972, and Tadeuz 1993)

Surgical reconstruction may be limited by the availability of tissue, the compromise of the local vascular bed by radiation in tumor patients, the need for periodic visual inspection of an oncologic defect , and the physical condition and age of the patient. (Beumer et al., 1996)

The cosmoses of the external ear may be unsatisfactory ,so that the use of prosthetic ear may be indicated .These can be made amazingly similar to the normal ear in configuration, color, and texture . Children may be more refractory to wear prosthesis than adults. (Tanzer 1965)