[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-363597-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":81,"doc-detail-363597-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","spontaneous-closure-of-partial-maxillectomy-defects-using-an-acrylic-removable-partial-dental-prosthesis-a-case-series","Spontaneous closure of partial maxillectomy defects using an acrylic removable partial dental prosthesis - A case series","","This case series describes prosthodontic management of five patients who, after surgical resection of maxillary neoplasms (with or without flap reconstruction), had persistent oronasal fistulas following partial maxillectomy. Spontaneous closure occurred in all five patients after use of a maxillary protective removable dental prosthesis that did not engage the fistula. The report frames fistula burden, reviews conventional surgical and obturator approaches, and presents a simple, cost-effective alternative strategy.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/healthcare/","Healthcare",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/spontaneous-closure-of-partial-maxillectomy-defects-using-an-acrylic-removable-partial-dental-prosthesis-a-case-series/363597/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/spontaneous-closure-of-partial-maxillectomy-defects-using-an-acrylic-removable-partial-dental-prosthesis-a-case-series/363597.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"4398046744996","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-27","2026-09-23",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",7,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"What was the purpose of this case series?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"To describe a simple, cost-effective acrylic protective removable dental prosthesis design that could lead to spontaneous closure of partial maxillectomy defects without further surgery.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"How did the prosthesis used in these cases differ from conventional obturators?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"It was a protective removable dental prosthesis that did not engage the fistula, with a flat intaglio surface and no reline material entering the defects.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"What was the clinical outcome for the five patients?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"All five patients achieved spontaneous closure of their partial maxillectomy defects after using the protective removable dental prosthesis.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},363597,1790216328,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,88,92,96,101,106,109,114,119,122,126],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":85,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":89,"show_sort_weight":90,"slug":91},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":93,"show_sort_weight":94,"slug":95},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":97,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":98,"show_sort_weight":99,"slug":100},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":102,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":103,"show_sort_weight":104,"slug":105},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":55,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":107,"slug":108},40,"healthcare",{"id":110,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":111,"show_sort_weight":112,"slug":113},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":115,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":116,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":118},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":117,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":121},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":123,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":123,"slug":125},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":127,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":128,"show_sort_weight":97,"slug":129},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":131},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":132,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":11,"doc_module":4,"category_id":55,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":133,"file_id":134,"file_url":135,"file_type":136,"file_size":137,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":55,"language":138,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":139,"faqs":140,"seo_title":141,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":142,"read_time":143},4398046744996,"DOI: 10.1111/jopr.70113  \nCLINICAL REPORT  \nSpontaneous closure of partial maxillectomy defects using an acrylic removable partial dental prosthesis: A case series  \nCaroline T. Nguyen DMD, MS1,2,3,4   Eitan Prisman MD5   \n1Faculty of Dentistry, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada  \n2Provincial Practice Leader in Prosthodontics, BC Cancer, Vancouver, BC, Canada  \n3The National Dental Examining Board of Canada, Ottawa, ON, Canada  \n4The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, ON, Canada  \n5Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, British Columbia, Canada  \nCorrespondence  \nCaroline T. Nguyen, The National Dental Examining Board of Canada, 340 Albert Street, 12th Floor, Ottawa, ON, K1R 7Y6, Canada. Email: [cnguyen@ndeb-bned.ca](cnguyen@ndeb-bned.ca)  \nAbstract  \nThis case series describes the prosthodontic treatment of five patients who were treated with surgical resection, with or without flap reconstruction, and had remaining oronasal fistulas following their maxillary neoplasms. All five patients obtained spontaneous closure of their partial maxillectomy defects following the use of a maxillary protective removable dental prosthesis that did not engage the fistula.  \nKEYWORDS  \nfistula, maxillectomy, oronasal, partial, protective removable dental prosthesis, RPD, surgery  \nMaxillary neoplasms have an annual incidence of 0.5–1.0 per 100,000 people. The first line of treatment for oral and maxillofacial neoplasms remains surgical resection. Malignant neoplasms are often treated with surgical resection accompanied by radiation therapy and/or chemotherapy.1–3 Maxillectomy can result in severe anatomical changes secondary to tumor resection and reconstruction, including decreased soft tissue envelope and skeletal support.3–9  \nResections commonly involve the alveolar and palatal processes of the maxilla, along with the palatal mucoperiosteum, frequently leading to oroantral or oronasal fistulas. Persistent fistulas result in multiple challenges for patients, including impaired mastication and swallowing, speech difficulties, oral discomfort, and nasal regurgitation.10 According to the literature, the definitive management of oronasal fistula is either by surgical reconstruction or prosthodonticobturators.11  \nSurgical reconstructions offer various possibilities and range from using a skin graft to close a defect, to using a free flap from the leg to restore the partition between the nasal and oral cavities. Surgical reconstructions generally allow for better speech and deglutition, eliminate the long-term need fora prosthesis in some patients, and can improve the patient’s  \nquality of life.3,5,12 However, they lengthen the recovery period, and the cost of surgery can range from $20,000 to $100,000 depending on the complexity of the surgery, the added hospitalization time, and the country of treatment. 13,14 Meanwhile, an obturator prosthesis generally fits into and closes a defect within the oral cavity.15 Restoring patients with obturator prostheses can facilitate oral access for hygiene procedures and visibility to the area in the case of recurrence; however, support and retention of theobturator can become problematic and uncomfortable to the patient.3,5,6,9,16 Additionally, for the prosthodontist, a smaller fistula defect can be difficult to impress and obturate due to the possibility of fracture of material stalk into the defect. An acrylic obturator bulb supported with a cast metal framework would generally cost between $2,500 and $3,500 in Canada, with a wider range between $1,000 and $6,000 internationally, depending on the country and the level of complexity of  \nthe prosthesis.17  \nHowever, recent approaches used at our institution have demonstrated that a simple acrylic protective removable dental prosthesis that does not engage the defect and costs about $500–$700 to fabricate can offer an alternative management option for facilitating spontaneous closure and reducing the  \nThis is an open access","cbCaibnthN7BgZPs","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaibnthN7BgZPs","pdf",1452351,"English","# Abstract\n# Case Series\n## Patient #1","[{\"question\":\"What was the purpose of this case series?\",\"answer\":\"To describe a simple, cost-effective acrylic protective removable dental prosthesis design that could lead to spontaneous closure of partial maxillectomy defects without further surgery.\"},{\"question\":\"How did the prosthesis used in these cases differ from conventional obturators?\",\"answer\":\"It was a protective removable dental prosthesis that did not engage the fistula, with a flat intaglio surface and no reline material entering the defects.\"},{\"question\":\"What was the clinical outcome for the five patients?\",\"answer\":\"All five patients achieved spontaneous closure of their partial maxillectomy defects after using the protective removable dental prosthesis.\"}]","Spontaneous closure of partial maxillectomy defects using an acrylic removable partial dental prosthesis - A case series | PDF",1790152046,18]