Abstract
Auricular prostheses for defects of external ear are retained either by mechanical means or implants. All implant retained prostheses are retained by various means such as bar and clip, magnetic attachments or a combination of bar, clip and magnets. The commonest problem encountered with the bar and clip system is loosening of the clip after 3–4 months. When magnets are used as retaining component they tend to corrode over a period of time. So various alternative retention methods which possess good retentive qualities, ease of reparability and patient friendly were tried. In the present case a newly modified Hader bar design which can act as an additional retentive feature apart from the clip is employed to increase retention. The major advantages in the modified Hader bar system were that only two implants were employed, the additional loops in the Hader bar prevented micro movements and the retentive acrylic locks were easy to repair if broken. The modified Hader bar has anti-rotational slots which prevents the sliding or rotation of the prosthesis which gave new confidence to the patient who was otherwise worried of inadvertent displacement of the ear prosthesis while playing.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
Beumer III J, Marunick MT, Esposito SJ (eds) Maxillofacial rehabilitation: prosthodontic and surgical management of cancer-related, acquired, and congenital defects of the head and neck, 3rd edn. Quintessence Pub., p 276
Chung RWC, Siu ASC, Chu FLS, Chow TW (2003) Magnet retained auricular prosthesis with an implant supported composite bar: a clinical report. J Prosthet Dent 89:446–449
de Sousa AA, Mattos BSC (2008) Magnetic retention and bar-clip attachment for implant-retained auricular prostheses: a comparative analysis. Int J Prosthodont 21:233–236
Payne AG, Solomons YF (2000) Mandibular implant supported over denture—a prospective evaluation of the burden of prosthodontic maintenance with 3 different attachment systems. Int J prosthodont 13:246–253
Srithavaj T, Wijitworawong A, Kharel A, Sanohkann S, Santawisuk W (2006) Attachment use in designing a stable facial prosthesis: a new clinical and technical report. Mahidol Dent J 26:337–343
Reisberg D, Habakuk S (1997) Use of a surgical positioner for bone anchored facial prosthesis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 12:376–379
Batenburg RH et al (1998) Mandibular overdentures supported by two Branemark, IMZ or ITI implants. A prospective comparative preliminary study: one-year results. Clin Oral Implants Res 9(6):374–383
Buser D et al (2002) Long-term stability of osseointegrated implants in augmented bone: a 5-year prospective study in partially edentulous patients. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 22(2):109–117
Branemark PI et al (1977) Osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Experience from a 10-year period. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Suppl 16:1–132
Trakas T et al (2006) Attachment systems for implant retained overdentures: a literature review. Implant Dent 15(1):24–34
Gary JJ, Donovan M (1993) Retention designs for bone anchored facial prosthesis. JPD 70:329–332
Khan Z, Bowden M (1994) Modified bar superstructure for an implant retained orbital prosthesis. JPD 3:65–67
Conflict of interest
None.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lovely, M., Dathan, P.C., Gopal, D. et al. Implant Retained Auricular Prosthesis with a Modified Hader Bar: A Case Report. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 14, 187–190 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13191-013-0277-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13191-013-0277-3