The aim of this systematic literature review is to compare and evaluate implant-supported and adhesiveretained systems for maxillofacial prostheses, as well as magnetic retention and bar-clip attachment systems for maxillofacial prostheses. Electronic literature search included Science Direct, Wiley Online Library, PubMed and Cochrane Library, manually reviewed by the authors, to identify the clinical trials regarding two anchorage (Implant & Adhesive) and two attachment systems (Barclip & Magnet) for maxillofacial prostheses retention. All studies carried out a standard method for the assessment of better retention means. The identified studies were analyzed. Overall cumulative implant success and survival rate of implants, along with the retention efficiency for two attachment systems (magnet-bar clip) were considered in this comparative study. The search provided 19,163 titles, of which 81 papers related to the aim of this study, including 16 papers that carried out clinical trials, were selected. Out of these 16 papers – 12 met the quality assessment and observed the inclusion criteria. The overall implant survival rate was of 73.2% to 100% for orbital implants, 100% for facial complex implants, 80% to 100% for auricular prostheses, 80% to 90.9 % for nasal implants, while bar-clip retention was higher than the magnetic attachment system. This review highlights that the retention system involved in craniofacial osseointegration offers more predictable support than facial prosthetic adhesives. Implant-retained prostheses are considered highly satisfactory and are clearly preferred by patients over the adhesive prostheses, showing improvement in patients’ activities and quality of life . Bar clip attachment systems proved to be more retentive than magnetic retention .Keywords:
- Adhesive retained maxillofacial prostheses
- Implant supported maxillofacial prostheses
- Maxillofacial prostheses retention
- maxillofacial prostheses.