Prosthetic management of interruptive mandibular defects
PDF (Français)


Mandibular interruptive Defect
Maxillofacial Prosthesis
Guide Device

How to Cite

HAMZAOUI, S., AZHARI, M., SAKOUT, M., ROKHSSI, H., & BENTAHAR, O. (2022). Prosthetic management of interruptive mandibular defects. International Arab Journal of Dentistry (IAJD), 13(2), 98-103. Retrieved from


Mandibular substance loss is one of the most frequent acquired defects of the maxillofacial mass. Several etiologies have been described, the most frequent of which are tumours and traumas. The most commonly used prosthetic classification takes into consideration the bone continuity of the mandible, thus there are marginal defect mandibular substance preserving bone continuity and segmental defect with basal bone discontinuity. These bone defects lead to numerous functional complications (loss the dental occlusion, decreased chewing efficiency, lack of stalling during swallowing, phonatory disorder related to the change in the buccal resonance cavity) and aesthetic complications (facial asymmetry due to lateral deviation, flanges and scars resulting from surgical flaps), not to mention the psychological impact on the social life of these patients. Mandibular latero-deviation causes several difficulties during prosthetic rehabilitation that should be managed as early as possible. Several prosthetic solutions, including guide devices, are available to centring the mandible and thus rehabilitate the patient's manducatory and aesthetic functions.

PDF (Français)


1. Benoist M. Réhabilitation et prothèse maxillo-faciale. Paris 1978.
2. Payement G, Cariou JL, Cantaloube D, Bellavoir A. Perte de substance des maxillaires. Encyclopedie Médico-Chirurgicale 1995;22-087-E-10.
3. Ellis E, Muniz O, Anand K. Treatment Considerations for Comminuted Mandibular Fractures. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 2003; 61: 861-870.
4. Brown J, Barry C, Ho M, Shaw R. A new classification for mandibular defects after oncological resection. Lancet Oncology 2016;17:23–30.
5. Exartier-Menard G, Grenier S, Mateu A, François N, Schittly E, Coeuriot JL. Difficultés rencontrées et solutions apportées :à propos d’un cas de prothèse maxillo-faciale mandibulaire. Stratégie prothétique 2019;19(3):179-184.
6. Benoit M. La réhabilitation chirurgico-prothétique en carcinologie maxillo-faciale. Actualités Odonto-Stomatologiques 1982; 137: 121-139.
7. Curtis DA, mesh O, Hannam AG, Sharma A, Curtis TA. Modeling of jaw biomechanics in the reconstructed mandibulectomy patient. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 1999; 81:167-73.
8. Millet C, Ducret M, Ferhat D, Venet L, Vincent B, Bodard Ag. Perte osseuse mandibulaire interruptrice et prothèse amovible implanto-retenue. Stratégie prothétique2015; 15(2): 97-104.
9. Aka GK, Kouakou RK, Djemo BR, Ouattara B, Gadebgeku SA. Rehabilitation Faciale Par Les Protheses Maxillo-Faciales Au Cours Des Tumeurs Benignes De La Mandibule. Revue Ivoirienne d’Odonto-Stomatologie 2006;8(2):39-48.
10. Vigarios E, Pradines M, Fusaro S, Toulouse E, Pomar P. Réhabilitation prothétique des pertes de substance mandibulaires d’origine carcinologique. Encyclopedie Médico-Chirurgicale 2008;28- 555-V-10.
11. Maroulakos G, Nagy WW, Ahmed A, Artopoulou II. Prosthetic rehabilitation following lateral resection of the mandible with a long cantilever implant-supported fixed prosthesis: A 3-year clinical report. The Journal Of Prosthetic Dentistry 2017;118(5):1-8.
12. Djavanmardi L, Princ G, Greux G, Kurc M. Les pertes de substances osseuse mandibulaires : prise en charge prothétique et implantaire. Actualités Odonto-Stomatologiques 2016;278:1-10.