Rehabilitation can positively affect quality of life, functional status, and physiological status for patients with head and neck or lung cancer. However, barriers and facilitators regarding access, referral, and participation in rehabilitation have not been outlined in the literature either from a healthcare professional or from a structural perspective. Therefore, the objective of this paper was to identify and map barriers and facilitators from structural and healthcare professionals' perspectives in relation to access, referral, and participation in rehabilitation for patients with head and neck or lung cancer.

Two systematic searches were conducted in five databases mapping peer-reviewed research literature.

In total, 17 studies of 3918 potential sources were included. Seven themes were identified. Four themes concerned access: Understanding Patients' Resources; Collaboration Determining Access; Education, Knowledge, and Evidence Impact Access to Rehabilitation; and Resources Affecting Availability to Rehabilitation Services. Two themes concerned referral: Referral Criteria; and Elements Affecting Referral Pathway. One theme concerned participation: Factors Influencing Participation.

From structural and healthcare professionals' perspectives, barriers and facilitators impact access, referral and participation in rehabilitation. However, the findings on facilitators were limited; only one theme addressed participation and two findings concerned patients with low socioeconomic status.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONHealthcare professionals should be mindful that a diverse array of barriers and facilitators may impact the rehabilitation pathway for patients with head, neck, and lung cancer.Engagement by healthcare professionals and structural initiatives are needed to ensure comprehensive access to information concerning rehabilitation options.Local guidelines should be developed to prescribe methods for informing and guiding patients towards suitable rehabilitation options.It is important that healthcare professionals take the individual patient's resources into account when navigating aspects of access, referral, and participation in rehabilitation.

Maxillofacial prosthodontists were advanced digital technology (ADT) adopters early in the new Millennium. The past two decades saw a range of digital enablers emerge including digital imaging (internal and surface), digital surgical planning, digital functional assessment, subtractive and additive manufacturing, navigation, and robotics among others. Artificial Intelligence (AI) is the latest ADT arrival that will be a challenging disruptive technology. ADT has served as a profound change agent in maxillofacial prosthodontics. The intent was to explore the process and level of ADT engagement in maxillofacial prosthodontics.

The purpose was twofold. Firstly, to explore maxillofacial prosthodontic engagement of ADT. Secondly, to develop a discussion document to assist the American Academy of Maxillofacial Prosthetics (AAMP) with establishing a collective awareness and considered opinion on the future of maxillofacial prosthodontics in the digital era.

AAMP member interest in ADT was assessed through analysis of AAMP annual congress programs and publications in the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry (JPD). The history of the maxillofacial prosthodontic journey to the digital era was undertaken with a selective literature review. The perceptions maxillofacial prosthodontists hold on ADT engagement was assessed through a survey of AAMP members. Developing an understanding of the influence AI was conducted with a review of pertinent literature.

From 2011-2020, an annual mean of 38% of papers published in the JPD involved clinical use of ADT. From 2017-2019, 44% of invited presentations at AAMP annual congresses included clinical use of ADT. The journey to the digital era distinguished three periods with formative and consolidation periods influencing the innovation digital era. The AAMP member survey had a 59% response rate and studied 10 domains through 31 questions. Of the respondents, 89% thought ADT important to the future of maxillofacial prosthodontics.

The discussion document will assist the AAMP in developing a collective consciousness and considered opinion on ADT in the future of maxillofacial prosthodontics. Members of the AAMP have a developed interest in clinical applications of ADT. A great challenge is that no formal education, training, or clinical competency requirements for ADT could be identified. Clinical competency requirements are important to prepare maxillofacial prosthodontics for the inevitability of a digital era future. The discussion document poses the fundamental question of whether maxillofacial prosthodontists will remain as passive end users of ADT and AI or will they become engaged knowledge workers that have determined clinical competency in ADT and AI in patient care. Without this knowledge worker role, maxillofacial prosthodontists may experience difficulty being part of the inevitable ADT-AI driven future.

As society ages, it is important to understand the prevalence of dementia and the difficulties of inserting prostheses in patients with maxillofacial defects in order to clarify issues in supportive care. We screened 183 patients for dementia using the revised Hasegawa's dementia scale (HDS-R) at the Clinic for Maxillofacial prosthetics, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, and investigated age and sex differences in HDS-R score. We asked 47 of the 183 participants about the difficulty of inserting a maxillofacial obturator prosthesis and collected subjective comments, information about the prosthesis, and data from five assessments. Multiple regression analysis was used to reveal factors associated with insertion difficulty. Overall, 8.7% of the participants were judged to have possible dementia. Men were more likely than women to have possible dementia, and the risk increased with age. Of the 47 participants, 26 reported difficulty inserting their prosthesis, 12 of whom attributed it to their oral defect. Fourteen patients advised following doctor's instructions to practice insertion in order to become accustomed to it. A lower HDS-R score had a significant impact on insertion difficulty. Cognitive function and difficulty inserting maxillary obturator prostheses should be considered in the provision of continuous supportive care to patients with maxillary defects.

Maxillofacial prostheses provide effective rehabilitation of complex facial defects as alternatives to surgical reconstruction. Although facial prostheses provide aesthetically pleasing reconstructions, multiple barriers exist that prevent their routine clinical use. The accessibility of facial prostheses is limited by the scarce supply of maxillofacial prosthodontists, significant time commitment and number of clinic appointments required of patients during prosthesis fabrication, short lifespan of prostheses, and limited outcomes data.

A literature review was completed using PubMed and Embase databases, with search phrases including face and maxillofacial prostheses. Patient cases are included to illustrate the use of facial prostheses to reconstruct complex facial defects.

The clinical use of facial prostheses requires a multidisciplinary team including a reconstructive surgeon, a maxillofacial prosthodontist, and an anaplastologist, if available, to provide patients with aesthetically appropriate facial prostheses. Developing technology including computer-aided design and three-dimensional printing may improve the availability of facial prostheses by eliminating multiple steps during prosthesis fabrication, ultimately decreasing the time required to fabricate a prosthesis. In addition, enhanced materials may improve prosthesis durability. Long-term outcomes data using validated measures is needed to support the continued use of facial prostheses.

Facial prostheses can be used to reconstruct complex facial defects, and bone-anchored prostheses are associated with high patient satisfaction. Multiple barriers prevent prostheses from being used for facial reconstruction. New technologies to assist the design and fabrication of prostheses, and cost reduction measures, may allow their use in the appropriately selected patient.

Historically, facial prosthetics have successfully rehabilitated individuals with acquired or congenital anatomical deficiencies of the face. This history includes extensive efforts in research and development to explore best practices in materials, methods, and artisanal techniques. Presently, extraoral maxillofacial rehabilitation is managed by a multiprofessional team that has evolved with a broadened scope of knowledge, skills, and responsibility. This includes the mandatory integration of different professional specialists to cover the bio-psycho-social needs of the patient, systemic health and pathology surveillance, and advanced restorative techniques, which may include 3D technologies. In addition, recent digital workflows allow us to optimize this multidisciplinary integration and reduce the active time of both patients and clinicians, as well as improve the cost-efficiency of the care system, promoting its access to both patients and health systems. This paper discusses factors that affect extraoral maxillofacial rehabilitation's present and future opportunities from teamwork consolidation, techniques utilizing technology, and health systems opportunities.

Head and neck care has been transformed by the introduction of advanced digital technologies that will continue to be important change drivers for maxillofacial prosthodontics. Insight into these changes is important in answering the question of whether maxillofacial prosthodontics is appropriately prepared to contribute effectively to future multidisciplinary care of the head and neck.

The purpose of this survey was to gain insight into the perception of changes experienced by maxillofacial prosthodontists in relation to clinical practice. The findings of this survey may assist the future development of the subspecialty.

An exploratory cross-sectional survey was conducted by using a convenience sample of members of the American Academy of Maxillofacial Prosthetics. The survey considered 10 domains and 31 questions. Fully completed surveys (164) provided a 59% response. Descriptive statistics used percentage responses to reduce and characterize perceptions across respondents.

Eighty-four percent of the respondents were from the United States. Results should be interpreted based on this cohort. Respondents reported a change in care delivered over the past 10 years (72%), with the most important causes of change attributed to surgery (60%) and advanced digital technologies (56%). Respondents perceived advanced digital technologies as being central to the future of maxillofacial prosthodontics (89%) and important in attracting younger colleagues (88%). Sixty-three percent believed training programs were not providing adequate education and training in the use of advanced digital technology.

The perception of maxillofacial prosthodontists regarding changes taking place in care delivery was that the most important changes in the past 10 years were attributed to surgery and advanced digital technologies, that persisting pressures related to few institutional positions, that the subspecialty was poorly visible, that remuneration for care was inadequate and referring disciplines did not understand the subspecialty, that advanced digital technologies were considered central to the future of maxillofacial prosthodontics and important to attract younger colleagues to the subspecialty, that barriers to advanced digital technology use included funding for equipment acquisition, institutional funding support, and remuneration for their use in care delivery, and that maxillofacial prosthodontic programs were not providing adequate education and training in advanced digital technologies.

Understanding how maxillofacial prosthodontists are perceiving changes in head and neck care and the impact of advanced digital technologies on maxillofacial prosthodontics is important. However, no studies could be identified that specifically addressed these subjects.

The purpose of this review of selected literature was to identify issues that guided the development of maxillofacial prosthodontics and the concerns that persist. The review also considered contemporary influences that will affect the future of maxillofacial prosthodontics. The conclusions of the review were used to interpret the results of the exploratory survey reported in Part II.

The review of selected literature was related to the development of maxillofacial prosthodontics in North America between 1950 and 2018. Literature that was considered relevant to the purpose of the review was included.

The review yielded 37 references of interest: 34 peer-reviewed publications, 1 guideline, 1 historical publication, and 1 website. Periods in the development of maxillofacial prosthodontics in North America were identified as formation, consolidation, and innovation.

It was concluded that concerns in subspecialty programs and clinical practice had origins in the formation and consolidation periods. These persisting concerns extended into the innovation period. Contemporary influences in head and neck surgery will continue to affect the future of maxillofacial prosthodontics. Advanced digital technologies appeared to be central to driving change. Understanding the evolution of maxillofacial prosthodontics was an important first step in providing context when interpreting the results of a survey of maxillofacial prosthodontists reported as Part II of this work.