The treatment of craniofacial anomalies has been challenging as a result of technological shortcomings that could not provide a consistent protocol to perfectly restore patient-specific anatomy. In the past, wax-up and impression-based maneuvers were implemented to achieve this clinical end. However, with the advent of computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) technology, a rapid and cost-effective workflow in prosthetic rehabilitation has taken the place of the outdated procedures. Because the use of implants is so profound in different facets of restorative dentistry, their placement for craniofacial prosthesis retention has also been widely popular and advantageous in a variety of clinical settings. This review aims to effectively describe the well-rounded and interdisciplinary practice of craniofacial prosthesis fabrication and retention by outlining fabrication, osseointegrated implant placement for prosthesis retention, a myriad of clinical examples in the craniofacial complex, and a glimpse of the future of bioengineering principles to restore bioactivity and physiology to the previously defected tissue.
Bioengineering ; Computer-Aided Design ; Dentistry ; Physiology ; Prostheses and Implants ; Prosthesis Retention ; Rehabilitation

Objective: We present how to perform radiofrequency sensory stimulation (RFSS) and whether RFSS could be helpful in identifying symptomatic injured roots in multilevel lumbar stenosis. Methods: Consecutive patients who underwent RFSS from 2010 to 2012 were enrolled. To identify pathologic lesions, RFSS was performed for suspicious roots, as determined using lumbar magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The RFSS procedure resembled transforaminal root block. During RFSS of the suspicious root, patients could indicate whether stimulation induced their usual pain and/or sensory changes and could indicate whether the same leg area was affected. The number of possible symptomatic roots on MRI was evaluated before and after RFSS. Based on the RFSS results, we confirmed the presence of symptomatic nerve root(s) and performed surgical decompression. Surgical results, such as numeric rating scale (NRS) scores for low back pain (LBP) and leg pain (LP), and Oswestry disability index (ODI), were evaluated. Results: Ten patients were enrolled in the study. Their mean age was 70.1±9.7 years. Clinically, NRS-LBP, NRS-LP, and ODI before surgery were 5.1%, 7.5%, and 53.2%, respectively. The mean number of suspicious roots was 2.6±0.8. After RFSS, the mean number of symptomatic roots was 1.6±1.0. On average, 1.4 lumbar segments were decompressed. The follow-up period was 35.3±12.8 months. At the last follow-up, NRS-LBP, NRS-LP, and ODI were 3.1%, 1.5%, and 35.3%, respectively. There was no recurrence or need for further surgical treatment for lumbar stenosis. Conclusion RFSS is a potentially helpful diagnostic tool for verifying and localizing symptomatic injured root lesions, particularly in patients with multilevel spinal stenosis.

Objective: : Lumbar disc herniation (LDH) is a common disease, and lumbar discectomy (LD) is a common neurosurgical procedure. However, there is little previous data on return to work (RTW) after LD. This study investigated the period until the RTW after LD prospectively. Clinically, the pain state at the time of RTW also checked. RTW failure rate 6 months after surgery also investigated. Methods: : Patients with daily/regular jobs undergoing LD between September 2014 and December 2018 were enrolled. Pain was assessed by the Oswestri Disability Index (ODI) and the Numeric Rate Scale (NRS). Employment type was divided into self-employed, regular and contracted. Monthly telephone interviews were conducted to check RTW status and self-estimated work capability after surgery. Results: : Sixty-seven patients enrolled in this study. Three patients failed to RTW, and three others resigned within 6 months after surgery. The preoperative NRS and ODI were 7.2±1.2 and 22.1±7.9, respectively. The average time to RTW was 5.1±6.0 weeks. At RTW, NRS was 1.5±1.8 and ODI was 6.3±3.9. Amongst patients that successfully returned to work were 16 self-employed workers, 42 regular employees, and three contracted workers. The time to RTW of self-employed, regular, and contracted workers were 5.9±8.8, 4.2±4.3 and 13.3±2.3 weeks, respectively (p=0.011). Thirty-six of the patients that returned to work self-reported a 22.8±15.6% reduction in work capability at 6 months. Conclusion : RTW may vary depending on the employment status. In this study, we found that while employment type may affect the length to RTW, most patients were able to RTW and >40% of patients reported no loss of work capabilities 6 months postoperatively, hopefully alleviating some patient hesitation towards LD.