Functional Outcome and Quality of Life after Prosthetic Rehabilitation in Patients with Maxillofacial Defects: A Systematic Review

Introduction: Maxillofacial prosthetics is a branch of dentistry focused on addressing congenital or acquired defects of the maxillofacial region. These defects may result from trauma, cancer, or other conditions, impacting speech, chewing, facial appearance, and overall quality of life. The field aims to restore both function and aesthetics, improving patients’ well-being. Aim: To evaluate the functional outcome and Quality of Life (QoL) after prosthetic rehabilitation in patients having maxillofacial defects. Materials and Methods: An electronic search was carried out across PubMed and Google Scholar to identify relevant articles published up to November 2023. Based on the framework of Population, Intervention, Control, and Outcomes (PICO), the main research question for this study was, “Does prosthetic rehabilitation improve functional outcome and QoL in patients with maxillofacial defects?” By looking at the titles, abstracts, and full texts of the articles, it was possible to verify their relevance and see if they met the inclusion criteria. This systematic review comprised Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs), cross-sectional studies, retrospective studies, and prospective studies on patients receiving prosthetic rehabilitation for maxillofacial defects published between 1990 and 2023. Only English-language articles were considered. Studies on congenital maxillofacial defects were excluded. A quality assessment of the listed studies was conducted using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) tool. Results: Out of the 155 results returned by the database search, 128 were removed due to incomplete, inconsistent, or missing information. Three additional papers were removed after evaluating 27 full text papers for eligibility. For that reason, the current systematic review includes a total of 24 papers. Nineteen studies included in this review were on maxillary defects with a total of 798 participants. Three studies addressed mandibular defects with 267 participants, and the remaining two covered facial defects with a total of 93 participants. A quality assessment of studies was done. Meta-analysis was not possible due to diversity of the data. Conclusion: Individuals with maxillofacial abnormalities experience significantly better functional outcomes and a higher QoL after maxillofacial prosthetic rehabilitation. However, using standardised evaluation instruments is crucial to guarantee consistent results and make it easier to compare results across various cases. By doing this, we can keep enhance patient well-being and more accurately assess the long term effects of prosthetic therapies.