Department of Head and Neck Surgery, Section of Oncologic Dentistry and Maxillofacial Prosthodontics, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
J Prosthodont. 2010 Aug;19(6):482-90. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2009.00538.x. Epub 2009 Dec 3.
The purpose of this survey was to review the extraoral maxillofacial materials currently used as well as the advantages and disadvantages of the materials in the fabrication of facial prostheses. Results of this survey will enhance scientific knowledge, generate research study ideas, and possibly lead to production of alternative or new maxillofacial materials.
A 47-question survey was delivered via e-mail to all members (combined total of 260 members) of the American Anaplastology Association (AAA) and American Academy of Maxillofacial Prosthetics (AAMP) for evaluation of personal preference involving maxillofacial prosthetic materials (intrinsic/extrinsic silicone elastomers and pigments/colorants used, polymerization/curing process, advantages and disadvantages of the most often used materials, most important characteristic of material/technique used).
The views of 43 (16%) respondents indicated that the majority surveyed were using room temperature-vulcanized (RTV) silicone products. Silicone pigments for intrinsic and silicone pastes for extrinsic coloring were favored over artist's oil colors and dry earth pigments. The polymerization process and/or curing times and temperatures for the same silicone material varied between users. The top five advantages of most often used materials were good esthetics, ease of coloring, easy manipulation, thin margins possible, and adhesive compatibility. The top five disadvantages were discoloration over time, technique-sensitivity, lack of repairability, extrinsic colors peel/fade, and lack of longevity. Nontoxic/nonallergenic materials with high edge strength and color stability were the most important features when choosing a maxillofacial prosthetic material/technique.
The responses to this survey indicate that the majority of AAA and AAMP members are using or have used a variety of RTV silicones, pigments, and colorants in the quest to provide the best possible facial prosthetic service. Further research is needed to further refine and improve extraoral maxillofacial materials/techniques based on the results of this study.
本调查的目的是回顾目前用于制作面部赝复体的颌面外材料，并评估这些材料的优缺点。调查结果将提高科学知识，产生研究思路，并可能导致替代或新型颌面材料的产生。
通过电子邮件向美国颌面赝复学协会（AAA）和美国颌面修复学会（AAMP）的所有成员（总计 260 名成员）发送了一份 47 个问题的调查问卷，以评估个人对颌面修复体材料的偏好（使用的内在/外在硅橡胶弹性体和颜料/着色剂、聚合/固化过程、最常用材料的优缺点、使用的材料/技术最重要的特性）。
43 名（16%）受访者的意见表明，大多数接受调查的人都在使用室温硫化（RTV）硅酮产品。用于内在着色的硅酮颜料和用于外在着色的硅酮糊剂优于艺术家油画颜料和干土颜料。同一硅酮材料的聚合过程和/或固化时间和温度因使用者而异。最常用材料的前五个优点是美观、易于着色、易于操作、可获得薄边缘、具有粘合兼容性。最常用材料的前五个缺点是随时间变色、技术敏感性、缺乏可修复性、外在颜色剥落/褪色以及缺乏耐用性。选择颌面赝复体材料/技术时，最重要的特征是无毒/无致敏性、边缘强度高、颜色稳定性好的材料。
本调查的回复表明，AAA 和 AAMP 的大多数成员都在使用或使用过各种 RTV 硅酮、颜料和着色剂，以提供尽可能好的面部赝复体服务。根据本研究的结果，需要进一步研究以进一步改进和完善颌面外材料/技术。
