Survey of currently used materials for fabrication of extraoral maxillofacial prostheses in North America, Europe, Asia, and Australia.
OBJECTIVE
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.


METHODS
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).


RESULTS
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.


CONCLUSIONS
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.
Montgomery
Patricia C
PC
Department of Head and Neck Surgery, Section of Oncologic Dentistry and Maxillofacial Prosthodontics, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Kiat-Amnuay
Sudarat
S
D001208:Asia; D001291:Attitude of Health Personnel; D001672:Biocompatible Materials / Q000737:chemistry; D055598:Chemical Phenomena; D004396:Coloring Agents / Q000737:chemistry; D004129:Dimethylpolysiloxanes / Q000737:chemistry; D004954:Esthetics; D005060:Europe; D005145:Face; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008447:Maxillofacial Prosthesis; D009656:North America; D058105:Polymerization; D011140:Polyurethanes / Q000737:chemistry; D019736:Prostheses and Implants; D017797:Prosthesis Coloring; D011474:Prosthesis Design; D012826:Silicone Elastomers / Q000737:chemistry; D013499:Surface Properties; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires; D013696:Temperature; D013997:Time Factors
C076788:A 2186; D001672:Biocompatible Materials; D004396:Coloring Agents; D004129:Dimethylpolysiloxanes; C020964:MDX 4-4210; D011140:Polyurethanes; D012826:Silicone Elastomers; C044914:cosmesil; C078082:silastic 4-4210