Document Type : Case reports


1 Ph.D., Rehabilitation Research Center, Department of Orthotics and Prosthetics, School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

2 MSc, Department of Orthotics and Prosthetics, University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation, Tehran, Iran.

3 MSc, Rehabilitation Research Center, Department of Orthotics and Prosthetics, School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.


Background: Fabrication of a prosthesis for people who lose an eye and parts of their cheekbones and nasal tissues is a challenge. The prosthesis suspension is a significant problem due to the open nasal cavity and the vast lesion area on the face.
Case Presentation: The present case report describes the application of a new suspension technique for a maxillofacial prosthesis on a person with an exenterated left eye. Moreover, parts of the patients maxillary and frontal sinuses had been as well removed due to infection. The conventional methods for suspending the prosthesis (i.e., anatomical, mechanical, chemical, and surgical methods) could not be used due to the fact that the patients sinus and nasal cavities were exposed. Therefore, a new prosthetic suspension technique was used to solve this problem.
Conclusion: In this clinical report, an optimal and effective method was adopted to make a prosthesis that can be used in similar cases of eye loss and extensive loss of the face. This new method does not need the application of adhesives and minimizes the donning and doffing time of the prosthesis.


  1. Pruthi G, Jain V. Light weight prosthesis for a patient with bilateral orbital exenteration--a clinical report. J Prosthodont. 2013;57(2):135-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jpor.2013.01.001. [PubMed: 23510650].
  2. Nemli SK, Aydin C, Yilmaz H, Bal BT, Arici YK. Quality of life of patients with implant-retained maxillofacial prostheses: a prospective and retrospective study. J Prosthet Dent. 2013;109(1):44-52. doi: 10.1016/S0022-3913(13)60010-4. [PubMed: 23328196].
  3. Dings JP, Merkx MA, de Clonie Maclennan-Naphausen MT, van de Pol P, Maal TJ, Meijer GJ. Maxillofacial prosthetic rehabilitation: a survey on the quality of life. J Prosthet Dent. 2018;120(5):780-6. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.03.032. [PubMed: 30414646].
  4. Atay A, Peker K, Günay Y, Ebrinç S, Karayazgan B, Uysal Ö. Assessment of health-related quality of life in Turkish patients with facial prostheses. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2013;11:11. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-11-11. [PubMed: 23351906].
  5. Pruthi G, Jain V, Sikka S. A novel method for retention of an orbital prosthesis in a case with continuous maxillary and orbital defect. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2010;10(2):132-6. doi: 10.1007/s13191-010-0025-x. [PubMed: 21629458].
  6. Jain RA, Verma M, Gupta R, Gill S, Ghosh M. Fabrication of a bicomponent hybrid orbital prosthesis. J Prosthet Dent. 2019;122(6):568-72. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.04.006. [PubMed: 31227245].
  7. Baino F, Perero S, Ferraris S, Miola M, Balagna C, Verné E, et al. Biomaterials for orbital implants and ocular prostheses: overview and future prospects. Acta Biomater. 2014;10(3):1064-87. doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2013.12.014. [PubMed: 24342039].
  8. Amornvit P, Rokaya D, Shrestha B, Srithavaj T. Prosthetic rehabilitation of an ocular defect with post-enucleation socket syndrome: a case report. Saudi Dent J. 2014;26(1):29-32. doi: 10.1016/j.sdentj.2013.12.006. [PubMed: 24526826].
  9. Chen PH, Seidenfaden JC, Sooudi I, Kase MT. Using digital technology to create a custom esthetic bandage for patients after rhinectomy. J Prosthet Dent. 2021;125(2):357-60. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.01.037. [PubMed: 32265124].
  10. Ariani N, Vissink A, van Oort RP, Kusdhany L, Djais A, Rahardjo TBW, et al. Microbial biofilms on facial prostheses. Biofouling. 2012;28(6):583-91. doi: 10.1080/08927014.2012.698614. [PubMed: 22703052].