Outcomes and influencing factors of dental implants in fibula, iliac crest, and scapula free flaps: a retrospective case-control study

PURPOSE

Reconstruction with vascularized bone grafts after ablative surgery and subsequent dental rehabilitation with implants is often challenging; however, it helps improve the patient's quality of life. This retrospective case-control study aimed to determine the implant survival/success rates in different vascularized bone grafts and potential risk factors.

METHODS

Only patients who received implants in free vascularized bone grafts between 2012 and 2020 were included. The free flap donor sites were the fibula, iliac crest, and scapula. The prosthetic restoration had to be completed, and the observation period had to be over one year after implantation. Implant success was defined according to the Health Scale for Dental Implants criteria.

RESULTS

Sixty-two patients with 227 implants were included. The implant survival rate was 86.3% after an average of 48.7 months. The causes of implant loss were peri-implantitis (n = 24), insufficient osseointegration (n = 1), removal due to tumor recurrence (n = 1), and osteoradionecrosis (n = 5). Of all implants, 52.4% were classified as successful, 19.8% as compromised, and 27.8% as failed. Removal of osteosynthesis material prior to or concurrent with implant placement resulted in significantly better implant success than material not removed (p = 0.035). Localization of the graft in the mandibular region was associated with a significantly better implant survival (p = 0.034) and success (p = 0.002), also a higher Karnofsky Performance Status Scale score with better implant survival (p = 0.014).

CONCLUSION

Implants placed in vascularized grafts showed acceptable survival rates despite the potential risk factors often present in these patient groups. However, peri-implantitis remains a challenge.

Peri-implant health after microvascular head and neck reconstruction-A retrospective analysis

INTRODUCTION

Prosthodontic rehabilitation after reconstruction with microvascular revascularized free flaps following ablative tumor surgery is challenging due to the altered anatomical and functional conditions. The aim of this retrospective study was to determine whether the type of graft and the type of peri-implant tissue have an effect on peri-implant inflammatory parameters and implant survival.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients who received a free flap reconstruction with subsequent implant-prosthetic rehabilitation between 2010 and 2022 were retrospectively included. The primary outcome variable was the probing depth (PPD) at a minimum of 1 year after completion of prosthetic restoration. Predictive variables were type of free flap, emergence profile, and history of radiation.

RESULTS

Seventy-one patients after free flap reconstruction were included in the analysis. At a minimum of 24 months after implant insertion the primary outcome, PPD showed no clinically relevant differences between the types of free flaps used. The emergence profile through a skin island resulted in an increase in BOP compared to native mucosa in the descriptive analysis (p-value > .05). The analysis showed a 5-year implant survival of 96.2% (95% CI: 0.929-0.996) in cases without irradiation and 87.6% (95% CI: 0.810-0.948) with irradiation of the region evaluated (p-value .034).

CONCLUSION

Flap and associated soft tissue type had no significant effect on 5-year implant survival or peri-implant inflammatory parameters. However, the large heterogeneity of the patient population indicates that further prolonged studies are required for a more differentiated assessment of the long-term success.

The Latest Craniofacial Reconstructive Techniques Using Anchored Implants after Surgical Treatment of Nasal and Paranasal Sinuses Tumors

Reconstructive surgery after surgical treatment of neoplasms in the head and neck region is always a challenge. Many factors are responsible for the success of reconstruction. The anatomy of the facial region is complex, which significantly influences the aesthetic effect of the reconstruction. Moreover, many patients undergo postoperative radiotherapy after surgical treatment, which affects the range of reconstructive techniques. The aim of this study is to review current reconstructive methods in the craniofacial region, using bone-anchored implants to attach nasal prostheses. The article also comprises the authors' own experience with successful single-stage, Vistafix 3 osseointegrated implants for the attachment of an external nasal prosthesis in a 51-year-old man after surgical removal of squamous cell carcinoma of the nose and paranasal sinuses. The literature search for articles regarding implants in craniofacial reconstructions was performed using the three following databases: Scopus, Web of Science and MEDLINE (through PubMed), and follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Statement (PRISMA). A systematic literature search was set for 2018-2023 and retrieved 92 studies. From them, 18 articles were included in the review.

Outcome of implants placed to retain craniofacial prostheses - A retrospective cohort study with a follow-up of up to 30 years

OBJECTIVES

To retrospectively assess the treatment outcomes of endosseous implants placed to retain craniofacial prostheses.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Patients with craniofacial defects resulting from congenital disease, trauma, or oncologic treatment had implant retained prostheses placed in the mastoid, orbital, or nasal region and then assessed over a period of up to 30 years. Implant survival rates were calculated with the Kaplan-Meier method. Clinical assessments consisted of scoring skin reactions under the prosthesis and the peri-implant skin reactions. Possible risk factors for implant loss were identified. Patient satisfaction was evaluated using a 10-point VAS-scale.

RESULTS

A total of 525 implants placed in 201 patients were included. The median follow up was 71 months (IQR 28-174 months). Implants placed in the mastoid and nasal region showed the highest overall implant survival rates (10-year implant survival rates of 93.7% and 92.5%, respectively), while the orbital implants had the lowest overall survival rate (84.2%). Radiotherapy was a significant risk factor for implant loss (HR 3.14, p < 0.001). No differences in implant loss were found between pre- and post-operative radiotherapy (p = 0.89). Soft tissue problems were not frequently encountered, and the patients were highly satisfied with their implant-retained prosthesis.

CONCLUSION

Implants used to retain craniofacial prostheses have high survival and patient satisfaction rates and can thus be considered as a predictable treatment option. Radiation is the most important risk factor for implant loss.

Dental implants in patients with head and neck cancer-A systematic review and meta-analysis of the influence of radiotherapy on implant survival

PURPOSE

The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare implant survival in irradiated and non-irradiated bone and to investigate potential risk factors for implant therapy in oral cancer patients.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

An extensive search in the electronic databases of the National Library of Medicine was performed. Systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted according to PRISMA statement. The meta-analysis was performed for studies with a mean follow-up of at least three and five years, respectively.

RESULTS

The systematic review resulted in a mean overall implant survival of 87.8% (34%-100%). The meta-analysis revealed a significantly higher rate of implant failure in irradiated bone compared to non-irradiated bone (p < .00001, OR 1.97, CI [1.63, 2.37]). The studies also showed that implants placed into irradiated grafted bone were more likely to fail than those in irradiated native bone (p < .0001, OR 2.26, CI [1.50, 3.40]).

CONCLUSION

Even though overall implant survival was high, radiotherapy proves to be a significant risk factor for implant loss. Augmentation procedures may also increase the risk of an adverse outcome, especially in combination with radiotherapy.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The treatment of patients receiving radiotherapy of any form requires precise individual planning and a close aftercare. Implants should be placed in local bone rather than in bone grafts, if possible.

Patient satisfaction with different types of craniofacial prostheses

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

A maxillofacial prosthesis represents an effective method of giving maxillofacial defects a positive esthetic appearance with minimal risk. However, studies of complications among prosthesis wearers are lacking.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this cross-sectional study was to determine levels of patient satisfaction with various maxillofacial prostheses and retention types, as measured through a survey questionnaire package.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Patients treated at the Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center Craniofacial Prosthetics Unit (CPU) since 2015 were included. They had been treated according to a standardized protocol and answered a survey questionnaire package with the following sections: demographics, frequency of prosthesis usage, and the Toronto Outcome Measure for Craniofacial Prosthetics (TOMCP-27) survey addressing patient satisfaction. To be eligible for this study, patients must have been more than 18 years of age, in possession of a maxillofacial prosthesis, and received treatment at the Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center CPU since 2015.

RESULTS

A total of 157 patients were eligible and contacted, of whom 51 agreed to participate in the survey. The study population was overall extremely satisfied with their maxillofacial prostheses. In 77.8% of the TOMCP-27 questions, the largest group of patients chose the answer demonstrating the highest level of satisfaction. Of all prosthesis types surveyed, patients with auricular prostheses reported the greatest rates of satisfaction, with the entire group having selected answers corresponding to the highest levels of overall satisfaction. However, patients with orbital prostheses were more likely to experience varying degrees of dissatisfaction, with 72% of the highest reported levels of dissatisfaction being from this prosthesis group. In addition, patients with osseointegrated implant-retained prostheses reported higher satisfaction levels with other retention methods, with the bar clasp group outperforming the magnetic coupling retention group.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients experienced an excellent overall rate of satisfaction with their maxillofacial prostheses. Future development should focus on the continued development of osseointegrated methods, improved magnetic coupling, and improved prosthesis technology, especially for orbital prostheses.

Clinical long-term and patient-reported outcomes of dental implants in oral cancer patients

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The aim of this clinical study was to investigate the clinical long-term and patient-reported outcome of dental implants in patients with oral cancer. In addition, analysis of the influence of radiation therapy, timing of implant insertion, and augmentation procedures on implant survival was performed.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This retrospective study investigated the clinical outcome of 711 dental implants in 164 oral cancer patients, inserted by experienced surgeons of the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Medical Center Mainz, Germany. Oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) was evaluated.

RESULTS

Cumulative 5-year and 10-year implant survival rates for all included implants were 87.3% and 80.0%. Implants placed straight after ablative surgery (primary implant placement) and implants placed after completing the oncologic treatment (secondary implant placement) showed a comparable implant survival (92.5% vs. 89.5%; p = 0.635). Irradiation therapy had no significant influence on implant survival of secondary placed implants (p = 0.929). However, regarding implant site (native bone vs. augmented bone) and radiation therapy (non-irradiated bone vs. irradiated bone), implants inserted in irradiated bone that received augmentation procedures showed a statistically significant lower implant survival (p < 0.001). Patients reported a distinct improvement in OHRQoL.

CONCLUSIONS

Promising long-term survival rates of dental implants in patients after treatment of oral cancer were seen. In addition, patients benefit in form of an improved OHRQoL. However, bone augmentation procedures in irradiated bone may result in an impaired implants' prognosis.

Influence of implant-specific radiation doses on peri-implant hard and soft tissue: An observational pilot study

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of real implant-bed-specific radiation doses on peri-implant tissue health in head and neck cancer (HNC) patients after radiotherapy.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Specific radiation doses in the area of 81 implants, in 15 irradiated HNC patients, were analyzed by matching data from the radiotherapy planning system with those of three-dimensional follow-up scans after implantation. Peri-implant bone resorption was measured radiographically after 1 and 3 years, and peri-implant tissue health was evaluated clinically. Individual parameters, such as age, gender, and localization, regarding the implant-specific radiation dose distribution were analyzed statistically.

RESULTS

The mean implant-bed-specific radiation dose was high, with 45.95 Gy to the mandible and 29.02 Gy to the maxilla, but significantly lower than the mean total dose to the tumor bed. Peri-implant bone resorption correlated with local inflammation and plaque. After 1 year, women temporarily showed significantly more bone loss than men and implant-specific radiation dose had a significant impact on peri-implant bone loss after 3 years.

CONCLUSIONS

The presented method is a feasible option to define precise implant-bed-specific radiation doses for research or treatment planning purposes. Implant-based dental restoration after radiotherapy is a relatively safe procedure, but a negative radiation dose-dependent long-term effect on peri-implant bone resorption calls for interdisciplinary cooperation between surgeons and radio-oncologists to define high-risk areas.