Orbital prosthesis and obturator fact that there is a need for compansating vertical movement of the obturator during chewing. Obtu- rator with minimum tooth and tissue support can move vertically, horizontally or oblique directions at the time of chewing. To prevent the movement of orbital prosthesis together with obturator, there should be a space to compensate this movement. Whilst the patient chews, active part will move in the spherical hole so that obturator cannot push the orbital prosthesis away from its place. This spherical hole act as a suspension mechanism. The reason for constructing this hole in spherical shape is directions of movement. During chewing not only vertical movements take place but also oblique and horizontal movements can be seen. In order to correspond these directions the hole was constructed in spherical shape. In spite of providing the orbital prosthesis to stay in situ during mastication, the active mecha- nism also has a function to pull prostheses to each other via magnets during rest times. In order to enhance the retention of both orbit- al prosthesis and obturator, this technique can be an alternative method instead of using adhesives in such cases that endoosseos implants cannot be used. rEFErEncEs 1. Wieselmann-Penkner K, Arnetzl G, Mayer W, Bratschko R. Minimizing movement of an orbital prosthesis retained by an obturator prosthesis. J Prosthet Dent 2004;91:188-190. 2. Goiato MC, Fernandes AU, dos Santos DM, Barão VA. Po- sitioning magnets on a multiple/sectional maxillofacial prosthesis. J Contemp Dent Pract 2007;8:101-107. 3. Koyama S, Sasaki K, Inai T, Watanabe M. Effects of de- fect configuration, size, and remaining teeth on mastica- tory function in post-maxillectomy patients. J Oral Rehabil 2005;32:635–641. 4. Keyf F. Obturator prostheses for hemimaxillectomy pa- tients. J Oral Rehabil 2001;28:821-829. 5. Depprich RA, Handschel JG, Meyer U, Meissner G. Com- parison of prevalence of microorganisms on titanium and silicone/polymethyl methacrylate obturators used for rehabilitation of maxillary defects. J Prosthet Dent 2008;99:400-405. 6. Wang RR. Sectional prosthesis for total maxillectomy pa- tients: A clinical report. J Prosthet Dent 1997;78:241-244. 464 European Journal of Dentistry 7. Goiato MC, Pesqueira AA, Ramos da Silva C, Filho HG, Mi- cheline dos Santos D. Patient satisfaction with maxillofa- cial prosthesis. Literature review. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2009;62:175-180. 8. Oki M, Iida T, Mukohyama H, Tomizuka K, Takato T, Tani- guchi H. The vibratory characteristics of obturators with different bulb height and form designs. J Oral Rehabil 2006;33:43-51. 9. Rilo B, Dasilva JL, Ferros I, Mora MJ, Santana U. Hollow- bulb interim obturator for maxillary resection: A case re- port. J Oral Rehabil 2005;32:234–236. 10. Nishigawa G, Maruo Y, Jin K, Oki K, Minagi S. A custom- made sealing screw cap for a closed, hollow obturator. J Craniofac Surg 2007;18:1138-1141. 11. Asher ES, Psillakis JJ, Piro JD, Wright RF. Technique for quick conversion of an obturator into a hollow bulb. J Pros- thet Dent 2001;85:419-420. 12. Habib BH, Driscoll CF. Fabrication of a closed hollow obtu- rator. J Prosthet Dent 2004;91:383-385. 13. Wolfaardt JF. Maxillofacial prosthetics--an internation- al perspective of the British status quo. J Oral Rehabil 1992;19:1-11. 14. Kiat-amnuay S, Lemon JC, Wesley PJ. Technique for fab- ricating a lightweight, urethane-lined silicone orbital pros- thesis. J Prosthet Dent 2001;86:210-213. 15. Kiat-amnuay S, Waters PJ, Roberts D, Gettleman L. Adhe- sive retention of silicone and chlorinated polyetylene for maxillofacial prosthesis. J Prosthet Dent 2008;99:483-488. 16. Seto K. Atlas of oral and maxillofacial rehabilitation. Tokyo: Quintessence Publishing Co., Ltd.; 2003; p.25-28. 17. McKinstry RE. Fundamentals of facial prosthetics. Arling- ton: ABI Professional Publications; 1995; p.121-136.