Interventions for replacing missing teeth: hyperbaric oxygen therapy for irradiated patients who require dental implants

Oral Rehabilitation in Irradiated Patients: Implant- or Tooth-Supported Fixed Prosthesis? A Clinical Report

Cranial radiotherapy has several side effects. One of the most important complications is radiation caries that endangers the treatment prognosis. In the literature, the use of crowns and bridges for irradiated patients has been suggested as a contraindication. In addition, due to the risk of osteoradionecrosis (ORN), there are doubts about tooth extraction and implant placement. Here, we present a treatment sequence and recalls for an irradiated young patient. For irradiated patients, it is recommended to replace teeth with implants when there is no possibility for supragingival prosthetic margin.

Impact of Hyperbaric Oxygen on Tissue Healing around Dental Implants in Beagles

Background

The impact of hyperbaric oxygen (HBO) on the healing of soft tissues around dental implants was studied in a beagle model.

Material/Methods

Beagle dogs were randomized to receive implants, followed by postoperative HBO therapy or not (n=10 per group). On postoperative days 3, 7, and 14, tissue specimens were paraffin-embedded and analyzed by hematoxylin-eosin and Masson staining, as well as immunohistochemistry against CD31.

Results

Scores for inflammation pathology based on hematoxylin-eosin staining and mean optical density of collagen fibers were significantly different between the HBO and control groups on postoperative days 3 and 7 (P<0.05), but not on day 14. Mean optical density due to anti-CD31 staining was significantly higher in the HBO group on postoperative days 3, 7, and 14 (P<0.05).

Conclusions

These results suggest that HBO may promote early osteogenesis and soft tissue healing after implantation.

A critical assessment of oral care protocols for patients under radiation therapy in the regional University Hospital Network of Madrid (Spain)

BACKGROUND

This research was aimed to critically evaluate, under the light of the available scientific evidence, the oral care protocols recommended by different hospitals in head and neck cancer (HNC) patients under radiation therapy.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A questionnaire requesting all the relevant information for the oral care of these patients was sent to the 9 University Hospitals in Madrid. The answers were categorized and analyzed. In addition, an electronic search was conducted to identify the most relevant papers (systematic reviews [SR] and randomized clinical trials [RCTs]) assessing oral care protocols for patients treated for HNC with radiation therapy.

RESULTS

Eight out of nine centers answered the questionnaire and the retrieved information was tabulated and compared. These recommendations were analyzed by a computerized search on MEDLINE and the Cochrane Oral Health Collaboration Database. The results of the analysis clearly shown a great heterogeneity, in terms of oral health care protocols, regarding the management of irradiated patients (for HNC) within the Hospitals of Madrid region. In addition, some of the recommendations lack solid scientific support.

CONCLUSIONS

The present survey revealed that the recommendations provided by the different hospitals were clearly different. The available evidence, supported by SR and RCTs, suggested the need of an oral assessment before cancer treatment, in order to prevent and treat dental pathologies and avoiding potential complications; during cancer treatment, it is relevant monitoring the patient in order to decrease the severity of the side effects, and to avoid any tooth extraction or surgery and special attention should be paid to mucositis, xerostomia and candidiasis; after cancer treatment, the following are relevant aspects: the risk of osteoradionecrosis, trismus, caries and the risks associated to dental implants.

KEY WORDS

Head and neck cancer, supportive care in cancer, radiotherapy complications, management and oral care on cancer treatment.

Comparative Study on the Efficacy of Anorganic Bovine Bone (Bio-Oss) and Nanocrystalline Hydroxyapatite (Ostim) in Maxillary Sinus Floor Augmentation

Purpose. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of anorganic bovine bone (Bio-Oss) in comparison with nanocrystalline hydroxyapatite (Ostim) in sinus floor augmentation. Methods. Ten patients aged 40–80 were selected. All the patients needed sinus floor augmentation due to insufficient bone for simultaneous implant placement. The patients underwent panoramic radiography and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) prior to surgical procedure. After lifting the sinus membrane, Bio-Oss and Ostim are randomly grafted at one of the two sides. Biopsies were obtained from areas identified 5 months after the surgery and before implant placement and then were prepared for histological analysis. Statistical analysis was performed with nonparametric Wilcoxon signed-rank test for comparison of histological and radiological parameters between the two groups. Results. Histological findings revealed a significant increase in percentages of new bone in the Ostim group (P = 0.015). Furthermore, new bone density was greater with Ostim compared to Bio-Oss (P = 0.038); however, the difference in height increase after surgery did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.191). Conclusion. Despite the limitations of this trial, Ostim and Bio-Oss are useful biomaterials in sinus augmentation and Ostim seems to be even more effective in new bone formation.

Indications and contraindications of dental implants in medically compromised patients: update

The aim of this study was to review the current scientific literature in order to analyse the indications and contraindications of dental implants in medically compromised patients. A reference research was carried out on PubMed using the key words “implant” AND (oral OR dental) AND (systemic disease OR medically compromised), in articles published between 1993 and 2013. The inclusion criteria were the following: clinical studies in which, at least, 10 patients were treated, consensus articles, reviewed articles and meta-analysis performed in humans treated with dental implants, and which included the disease diagnosis. A total of 64 articles were found, from which 16 met the inclusion criteria. Cardiac systemic diseases, diabetic endocrine pathologies or controlled metabolic disorders do not seem to be a total or partial contraindication to the placement of dental implants. Tobacco addiction, and head and neck radiotherapy are correlated to a higher loss of dental implants. Patients suffering from osteoporosis undergoing biphosphonates therapy show an increased risk of developing bone necrosis after an oral surgery, especially if the drugs are administered intravenously or they are associated to certain concomitant medication.

Key words:Dental implants, medically compromised patient, systemic diseases.

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: hyperbaric oxygen therapy for irradiated patients who require dental implants

BACKGROUND

Dental implants offer one way to replace missing teeth. Patients who have undergone radiotherapy and those who have also undergone surgery for cancer in the head and neck region may particularly benefit from reconstruction with implants. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBO) has been advocated to improve the success of implant treatment in patients who have undergone radiotherapy but this remains a controversial issue.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the success, morbidity, patient satisfaction and cost effectiveness of dental implant treatment carried out with and without HBO in irradiated patients.

SEARCH METHODS

The following electronic databases were searched: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 17 June 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 5), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 17 June 2013) and EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 17 June 2013). No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. We checked the bibliographies of relevant clinical trials and review articles for studies outside the searched journals. We wrote to authors of the identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and to more than 55 oral implant manufacturers; we used personal contacts and we made a request on an internet discussion group in an attempt to identify unpublished or ongoing RCTs.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of HBO therapy for irradiated patients requiring dental implants.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the trials and data extraction were conducted in duplicate and independently by two review authors. Results were analysed using random-effects models to determine mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals.

MAIN RESULTS

Only one RCT, providing very low quality evidence, was identified and included. Thirteen patients received HBO therapy while another 13 did not. Two to six implants were placed in people with fully edentulous mandibles to be rehabilitated with bar-retained overdentures. One year after implant loading, four patients had died from each group. One patient, treated with HBO, developed an osteoradionecrosis and lost all implants so the prosthesis could not be provided. Five patients in the HBO group had at least one implant failure versus two in the control group. There were no statistically significant differences for prosthesis and implant failures, postoperative complications and patient satisfaction between the two groups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Despite the limited amount of clinical research available, it appears that HBO therapy in irradiated patients requiring dental implants may not offer any appreciable clinical benefits. There is a definite need for more RCTs to ascertain the effectiveness of HBO in irradiated patients requiring dental implants. These trials ought to be of a high quality and reported as recommended by the CONSORT statement (www.consort-statement.org/). Each clinical centre may have limited numbers of patients and it is likely that trials will need to be multicentred.

Smoking, radiotherapy, diabetes and osteoporosis as risk factors for dental implant failure: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There are conflicting reports as to the association between smoking, radiotherapy, diabetes and osteoporosis and the risk of dental implant failure. We undertook a meta-analysis to evaluate the association between smoking, radiotherapy, diabetes and osteoporosis and the risk of dental implant failure.

METHODS

A comprehensive research on MEDLINE and EMBASE, up to January 2013, was conducted to identify potential studies. References of relevant studies were also searched. Screening, data extraction and quality assessment were conducted independently and in duplicate. A random-effects meta-analysis was used to pool estimates of relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

A total of 51 studies were identified in this meta-analysis, with more than 40,000 dental implants placed under risk-threatening conditions. The pooled RRs showed a direct association between smoking (n = 33; RR = 1.92; 95% CI, 1.67-2.21) and radiotherapy (n = 16; RR = 2.28; 95% CI, 1.49-3.51) and the risk of dental implant failure, whereas no inverse impact of diabetes (n = 5; RR = 0.90; 95% CI, 0.62-1.32) on the risk of dental implant failure was found. The influence of osteoporosis on the risk of dental implant failure was direct but not significant (n = 4; RR = 1.09; 95% CI, 0.79-1.52). The subgroup analysis indicated no influence of study design, geographical location, length of follow-up, sample size, or mean age of recruited patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Smoking and radiotherapy were associated with an increased risk of dental implant failure. The relationship between diabetes and osteoporosis and the risk of implant failure warrant further study.

Time interval after radiotherapy and dental implant failure: systematic review of observational studies and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Typically, dental implants are placed in irradiated bone after a delay that exceeds 6 months, but it is not known whether longer delays are beneficial.

PURPOSE

The purpose of the study is to review the literature comparing the failure rate of dental implants placed in irradiated bone between 6 and 12 months and after 12 months from the cessation of radiotherapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Four electronic databases were searched for articles published until February 2013 without language restriction: Lilacs, Medline, Scopus, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Two reviewers independently assessed the eligibility criteria and extracted data. Fixed effect meta-analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Overall, 3,749 observational studies were identified. After the screening of titles and abstracts, 236 publications were selected, and 10 were included in the final analysis. The pooled relative risk (RR) of failure was RRpooled  = 1.34 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.01-1.79), higher in individuals who had dental implants installed between 6 and 12 months after receiving radiotherapy. I(2) indicated nearly 21% heterogeneity (p = .25). Egger's test indicated no evidence of publication bias (p = .62); however, the removal of one study significantly affected the overall RR (RRpooled  = 1.08, 95% CI: 0.77-1.52).

CONCLUSIONS

Placing implants in bone within a period shorter than 12 months after radiotherapy may result in a higher risk of failure; however, additional evidence from clinical trials is needed to verify this risk.

Patient-related risk factors for implant therapy. A critique of pertinent literature

BACKGROUND

Treatment planning for dental implants involves the assessment of patient-related risk factors prior to formulation of a treatment plan. The aim of this review was to assess relevant literature and provide evidence-based information on the successful surgical placement of dental implants.

METHODS

An electronic search of Medline, PubMed and the Cochrane Databases of Systematic Reviews was undertaken using a combination of MeSH terms and keywords. A handsearch was also performed and cross-referenced with articles cited in papers selected. The primary study parameter was implant failure.

RESULTS

Forty-three studies were selected based on specific inclusion criteria. Many studies contain confounding variables, numbers in subcategories are often too small for meaningful statistical analysis, and follow-up times vary and are often short-term.

CONCLUSIONS

There are many risk factors which the clinician is required to know and understand to advise patients, and consider in planning and treatment provision. Consistent evidence exists to show an increased failure rate with smokers, a history of radiotherapy and local bone quality and quantity. Weaker evidence exists to show a higher incidence of peri-implant disease in patients with a history of periodontitis-related tooth loss. Lack of evidence precludes definitive guidelines for patients with autoimmune disorders where expert opinion recommends caution. Osteoporotic patients show acceptable survival rates; however patients on oral bisphosphonates show a small incidence but high morbidity from osteonecrosis of the jaw. Emerging evidence suggests that there is a correlation between genetic traits and disruption of osseointegration.

Oral rehabilitation with dental implants after cancer treatment

BACKGROUND

Patients who undergo surgical management of oral cancer may greatly benefit from an implant-supported prosthesis. This study reports on the clinical experience of dental implant placement in patients following resection of oral cancer over a 15-year period. Controversies including the use of dental implants in irradiated tissues, and hyperbaric oxygen treatment will also be discussed.

METHODS

Thirty-one patients who had dental implants placed as part of their oral rehabilitation between 1992 and 2007 were investigated. Demographic data and factors including implant survival, type of prosthesis provided, radiotherapy and the hyperbaric oxygen therapy were analysed.

RESULTS

In this retrospective study, there was a retention rate of 110 implants from a total of 115 implants placed. A high rate of implant retention was found, with 5 implant failures from a total of 115 implants placed. The 5 failed implants occurred in free flap bone that had been irradiated.

CONCLUSIONS

Dental implants provide an important role in the oral rehabilitation of oral cancer patients. There may be an increased risk of implant failure in free flap bone that has been irradiated.

A low-grade myofibroblastic sarcoma in the abdominal cavity

Background

Rhabdomyosarcoma is the most common malignant tumor in the nasal and paranasal sinus area at childhood. Multimodal treatment for this disorder has severe side effects due to normal tissue damage. As a result of this treatment, facial growth retardation and oral abnormalities such as malformation of teeth and microstomia can cause esthetic and functional problems.

Case reports

Two cases are presented of patients with severe midfacial hypoplasia and reduced oral function as a result of treatment of rhabdomyosarcoma of the nasopharyngeal and nasal–tonsil region. With a combined surgical (osteotomy, distraction osteogenesis, implants) and prosthetic (implant-based overdenture) treatment, esthetics and function were improved.