|
| SYSTEMATIC REVIEW |
 |
|
|
| Year : 2018 |
Volume
: 29 | Issue : 2 | Page
: 217-224 |
|
Restricted mouth opening and its definitive management: A literature review
Bhushan Kumar1, Aquaviva Fernandes2, Prabhdeep Kaur Sandhu3
1 Department of Prosthodontics, Graded Specialist, Army Dental Corps, India
2 Department of Prosthodontics, Private Practitioner, Goa, India
3 Department of Orthodontics, Private Practitioner, Hisar, India
Correspondence Address:
Dr. Bhushan Kumar
7-A Manikshaw Colony, Pathankot - 145 001, Punjab
India
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
DOI: 10.4103/ijdr.IJDR_544_16
|
|
|
Purpose: This review was intended to discuss the various possible modifications suggested in the literature for prosthetic steps and surgical corrective procedures in nonresponding or complicated cases during rehabilitation of patients with restricted mouth opening. Material and Methods: Medline, PubMed, and Google were searched electronically for articles using keywords: microstomia and treatment options for restricted mouth opening. The various articles on prosthodontic rehabilitation in microstomia were segregated. From these, various modifications in the prosthetic steps were reviewed. Results: Oral hygiene maintenance is difficult for patient either due to limited access or due to associated lack of manual dexterity, so dental decay and periodontal problems are more extensive in such patients; hence, tooth loss is a common finding. All prosthetic procedures require wide mouth opening to carry out various steps, starting from tray placement during impression making to the final prosthesis insertion, especially removable prosthesis. Various prosthetic modifications given by authors are included in this review for each step in prosthodontic management. A total of eight stock tray designs, 12 custom tray designs, and 17 removable prosthesis designs are discussed along with fixed (either tooth-supported or implant-supported) and maxillofacial prosthesis. However, some patients require surgical intervention also for the correction of microstomia either for function or for esthetic purpose before prosthetic rehabilitation and are also enumerated here. Conclusion: Among all prosthetic restorative options, removable prosthesis is most difficult for dentist to fabricate as conventional methods are either very difficult or impossible to apply. To get a more accurate final prosthesis, we need to modify these steps according to the existing case. Several modifications available are discussed here which can help while managing these patients. |
|
|
|
| [FULL TEXT] [PDF]* |
|
 |
|
Users online:
