A Custom-made nasal prosthesis rehabilitation post total rhinectomy

https://doi.org/10.22146/majkedgiind.107138

Wina Meiana Wijaya(1*), Fransiscus Wihan Pradana(2), Intan Ruspita(3)

(1) Prosthodontics Specialty Program, Faculty of Dentistry, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia
(2) Prosthodontics Division, Dr. Sardjito Central General Hospital, Yogyakarta, Indonesia
(3) Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia
(*) Corresponding Author

Abstract


Sinonasal carcinoma (SNC) is a rare but aggressive malignancy often diagnosed at an advanced stage. Total rhinectomy, though potentially life-saving, results in significant functional and psychosocial impairments. This case highlights the use of a custom-made room temperature vulcanizing (RTV) silicone nasal prosthesis as a non-invasive rehabilitation option post-rhinectomy. A 50-year-old male presented with persistent nasal discharge and epistaxis. Imaging and biopsy confirmed high-grade non-intestinal type sinonasal adenocarcinoma, staged as T4aN0M0 (Stage IVA). The patient underwent total rhinectomy followed by radiotherapy. After sufficient healing, maxillofacial prosthetic rehabilitation was initiated. The nasal prosthesis was fabricated using RTV silicone and retained with eyeglasses. At one-month follow-up, the patient reported excellent prosthetic function, aesthetic satisfaction, and improved self-esteem, with no complications. This case demonstrates that custom-made nasal prostheses using RTV silicone can effectively restore aesthetics and function following total rhinectomy. It further underscores the importance of a multidisciplinary approach and individualized treatment planning in optimizing patient outcomes.


Keywords


maxillofacial prosthesis; nasal prosthesis; RTV silicone; sinonasal carcinoma; total rhinectomy

Full Text:

3. Wina Meiana


References

  1. Yang L, Gu Y, Yu L, Zhou Q, Liu L, Mao Y, et al. Epidemiological features of sinonasal adenocarcinoma and prognostic nomogram: a study based on the SEER database. Cancer Control. 2025; 32: 10732748241303423. doi: 10.1177/10732748241303423
  2. Freitas MB, Costa M, Coelho AF, Pereira PR, Leal M, Sarmento C, et al. Sinonasal adenocarcinoma: clinicopathological characterization and prognostic factors. Cureus. 2024; 16(3): e56067. doi: 10.7759/cureus.56067
  3. Chabrillac E, Talawdekar A, Garikipati S, Varley I, Sionis S, Beasley N, et al. A single centre’s experience of 23 cases of total rhinectomy for the treatment of squamous cell carcinoma involving the nasal vestibule. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2022; 279(4): 2069–2075. doi: 10.1007/s00405-021-06972-6
  4. Maoz SL, Wang EW, Hwang PH, Choby G, Kuan EC, Fleseriu CM, et al. Long‐term quality of life after treatment in sinonasal malignancy: A prospective, multicenter study. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2023; 13(11): 2030–2042. doi: 10.1002/alr.23171
  5. Faris C, Heiser A, Quatela O, Jackson M, Tessler O, Jowett N, et al. Health utility of rhinectomy, surgical nasal reconstruction, and prosthetic rehabilitation. Laryngoscope. 2020; 130(7): 1674–1679. doi: 10.1002/lary.28480
  6. Van den Heever JH, Sykes LM, Nethononda PT, Naidu K. Immediately loaded zygomatic implants used for a functional and aesthetic rehabilitation following a combined maxillectomy and rhinectomy. SADJ. 2022; 77(08): 489–495. 10.17159/2519-0105/2022/v77no8a6
  7. Aminova M, Abdurasulova S, Abdukarimov A, Egammurodov O, Almardanova K. Innovative approaches to implantation and prosthetics in the maxillofacial area. International Journal Of Medical Sciences. 2025; 1(2): 307–310.
  8. D’heygere V, Mattheis S, Stähr K, Bastian T, Höing B, Lang S, et al. Epithetic nasal reconstruction after total rhinectomy: Oncologic outcomes, immediate and long-term adverse effects, and quality of life. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2021; 74(3): 625–631. doi: 10.1016/j.bjps.2020.10.013
  9. Vincent P, Raghavan SM, C R, Sreekumar S. Prosthetic rehabilitation with customized nasal prosthesis following partial rhinectomy: a case report. Cureus. 2024; 16(9): e69112. doi: 10.7759/cureus.69112
  10. Jaiswal D, Bindu A, Pilania V, Saxena B, Yadav P. Guidelines for best clinical practices in oral cancer reconstruction. Guidelines for Best Clinical Practices in Plastic Surgery; 2022. 18.
  11. Migliorelli A, Sgarzani R, Cammaroto G, De Vito A, Gessaroli M, Manuelli M, Ciorba A, Bianchini C, Pelucchi S, Meccariello G. Reconstructive options after oncological rhinectomy: state of the art. Healthcare (Basel). 2023; 11(12): 1785. doi: 10.3390/healthcare11121785
  12. Kubaev AS. Modern approach to comprehensive rehabilitation of patients with face defects. Texas Journal of Medical Science. 2023; 20: 1-7. doi: 10.62480/tjms.2023.vol20.pp1-7
  13. Gradinariu AI, Racles C, Stoica I, Stelea CG, Simionescu AMA, et al. Silicones for maxillofacial prostheses and their modifications in service. Materials. 2024; 17(13): 3297. doi: 10.3390/ma17133297
  14. Ghazali N, Romli AZ, Ariff TFTM. Application of silicone elastomers in extraoral prosthesis: a narrative review. Compendium of Oral Science. 2025; 12(1): 20–39. doi: 10.24191/cos.v12i1.5645
  15. Sybil D, Guttal S, Midha S. Nanomaterials in prosthetic rehabilitation of maxillofacial defects. Springer eBooks; 2020. 53–76.
  16. Nichlani G, Mittal DA, Joshi M, Ghadage M, Kadam N, Kamble SS. Retention in maxillofacial prostheses. International Journal of Health Sciences. 2022; 6(S2): 2151–2163. doi: 10.53730/ijhs.v6nS2.5442
  17. Mathew RS, Raghavan R, PA S. Maxillofacial prosthetic rehabilitation using different retention systems: A review. IP Annals of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry. 2022; 8(3): 143–149. doi: 10.18231/j.aprd.2022.029
  18. Ruse MK, Calhoun M, Davis BK. Prosthetic nasal reconstruction. Facial Plast Surg Clin N Am. 2024; 32(2): 327–337. doi: 10.1016/j.fsc.2023.12.002
  19. César Gamaliel Rivera Martínez, Hernández Abarca E, José Pablo Busto Ruano, Mayrelle Martínez Quincosa, Priego Blancas RB, Adelaido López Chavira, et al. Total rhinectomy with prosthesis placement as a treatment for moderately differentiated squamous cell carcinoma of the nose. Clin Case Rep. 2023; 11(2): e6957. doi: 10.1002/ccr3.6957
  20. Farrag AK, Sherine M, Kuldeep Raizada, Fata M, Abdelrahman H, Soliman IS. Quality of life assessment in patients with a unilateral orbital defect provided with an interim prosthetic rehabilitation: A randomized crossover clinical trial. J Prosthet Dent. 2025; S0022-3913(25)00386-5. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2025.04.034
  21. Davies I, Himesha B, Medawela RMS, Evans PL, Kittur MA, Shah K. Immediate Prosthetic nasal rehabilitation following rhinectomy: indications and limitations of the epiplating system – a case series. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2025; 63(3): 252-254. doi: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2025.01.007



DOI: https://doi.org/10.22146/majkedgiind.107138

Article Metrics

Abstract views : 15 | views : 0

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Bookmark and Share


Copyright (c) 2025 Majalah Kedokteran Gigi Indonesia

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

 

 View My Stats


real time web analytics