Overdentures on primary mandibular implants in patients with oral cancer: a follow-up study over 14 years

Site-specific radiation dosage and implant survival in oral cancer patients: A cohort study

OBJECTIVES

We assessed the radiation dosages (Dmean ) on implant regions to identify the threshold for implant loss in patients with an intraoral malignancy treated with dental implants to support a mandibular denture during ablative surgery before volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data was collected prospectively from 28 patients treated surgically for an intraoral malignancy, followed by postoperative radiotherapy (VMAT) and analyzed retrospectively. Patients received 2 implants in the native mandible during ablative surgery. Implant-specific Dmean values were retrieved from the patients' files. Radiographic bone loss was measured 1 year after implant placement and during the last follow-up appointment. Implant survival was analyzed with the Kaplan-Meier method. Univariate logistic regression and Cox-regression analyses were performed to investigate the effect of increasing implant-specific radiation dosages on implant loss.

RESULTS

Five out of 56 placed implants were lost during follow-up (median 36.0 months, IQR 39.0). Radiographically, peri-implant bone loss occurred in implants with a Dmean  > 40 Gy. Implant loss occurred only in implants with a Dmean  > 50 Gy.

CONCLUSION

An implant-specific Dmean higher than 50 Gy is related to more peri-implant bone loss and, eventually, implant loss.

The dose-dependent impact of γ-radiation reinforced with backscatter from titanium on primary human osteoblasts

In head and neck cancer patients receiving dental implants prior to radiotherapy, backscatter from titanium increases the radiation dose close to the surface, and may affect the osseointegration. The dose-dependent effects of ionizing radiation on human osteoblasts (hOBs) were investigated. The hOBs were seeded on machined titanium, moderately rough fluoride-modified titanium, and tissue culture polystyrene, and cultured in growth- or osteoblastic differentiation medium (DM). The hOBs were exposed to ionizing γ-irradiation in single doses of 2, 6 or 10 Gy. Twenty-one days post-irradiation, cell nuclei and collagen production were quantified. Cytotoxicity and indicators of differentiation were measured and compared to unirradiated controls. Radiation with backscatter from titanium significantly reduced the number of hOBs but increased the alkaline phosphatase activity in both types of medium when adjusted to the relative cell number on day 21. Irradiated hOBs on the TiF-surface produced similar amounts of collagen as unirradiated controls when cultured in DM. The majority of osteogenic biomarkers significantly increased on day 21 when the hOBs had been exposed to 10 Gy, while the opposite or no effect was observed after lower doses. High doses reinforced with backscatter from titanium resulted in smaller but seemingly more differentiated subpopulations of osteoblasts.

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.

Clinical performance of different types of dental prosthesis in patients with head and neck tumors-a retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVES

To investigate how different types of dental prosthesis perform in patients with head and neck tumors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this retrospective clinical cohort study, the impact of different patient-related factors was analyzed as influencing factors on the survival probability of dental prosthesis using Kaplan-Meier estimate. For analysis, the dental prosthesis was divided into groups: group 1 (fixed dental prosthesis), group 2 (removable dental prosthesis), group 3 (implant-supported dental prosthesis), and group 4 (prostheses anchored using wrought wire clasps and obturators). The incidental aftercare measures were also evaluated.

RESULTS

Two hundred seventy-nine restorations were observed (mean observation: 2.7 ± 3.0 years, max.14.8 years) out of which 49 (17.6%) had to be replaced during the observation. After 5 years, 100% of group 1 restorations, 79.9% of group 2 restorations, 91.4% of group 3 restorations, and 30% of group 4 restorations were still functional. Four hundred eighty-eight dental implants were observed, of which 77 (15.8%) failed.

CONCLUSIONS

Groups 1, 2, and 3 restorations showed good survival times after 5 years in function, whereas group 4 presented the worst survival times. Group 2 restorations showed the highest amount of necessary aftercare measures.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The current investigation shows that groups 1, 2, and 3 restorations should be preferred in the prosthetic treatment planning of patients with head and neck tumors. A treatment with group 4 restorations should only be considered if no other prosthetic treatment is possible or as temporary treatment.

Radiotherapy and the survival of dental implants: a systematic review

For patients with head and neck cancer, the effects of treatment with adjuvant radiotherapy can be devastating. Frequently there is loss of function due to tooth loss, pain and discomfort from xerostomia and mucositis, and a significant psychosocial impact. Dental implants provide an effective means of rehabilitation for many, but irradiation poses a unique set of challenges that can affect the outcome of treatment. The aims of this review were to find out whether radiotherapy in these patients affects the survival of dental implants, and to discuss details of pertinent influencing factors. An electronic search of the Medline, Web of Science, and CENTRAL databases was done to identify studies on the survival of implants in irradiated patients within specified inclusion and exclusion criteria. No restriction was placed on the year of publication. The primary outcome measure was implant survival. Seven studies involving 441 participants and 1502 implants placed into irradiated bone were included. Meta-analysis indicated that survival was significantly higher in the mandible compared with the maxilla (p = 0.04), and in non-irradiated cases compared with irradiated cases (p < 0.001). Other factors that showed a strong association with survival were radiation dose and timing of surgery. Implant-based rehabilitation is a viable option for head and neck cancer patients who have undergone radiotherapy. Whilst the short to medium-term implant survival in these cases is high, multiple factors require careful consideration for a favourable outcome. Further high-quality research and randomised controlled trials are required in this field.

Immediate implant-retained prosthetic obturation after maxillectomy based on zygomatic implant placement by 3D-guided surgery: a cadaver study

Background

The aim of this study was to introduce a complete 3D workflow for immediate implant retained prosthetic rehabilitation following maxillectomy in cancer surgery. The workflow consists of a 3D virtual surgical planning for tumor resection, zygomatic implant placement, and for an implant-retained prosthetic-obturator to fit the planned outcome situation for immediate loading.

Materials and methods

In this study, 3D virtual surgical planning and resection of the maxilla, followed by guided placement of 10 zygomatic implants, using custom cutting and drill/placement-guides, was performed on 5 fresh frozen human cadavers. A preoperatively digitally designed and printed obturator prosthesis was placed and connected to the zygomatic implants. The accuracy of the implant positioning was obtained using 3D deviation analysis by merging the pre- and post-operative CT scan datasets.

Results

The preoperatively designed and manufactured obturator prostheses matched accurately the per-operative implant positions. All five obturators could be placed and fixated for immediate loading. The mean prosthetic point deviation on the cadavers was 1.03 ± 0.85 mm; the mean entry point deviation was 1.20 ± 0.62 mm; and the 3D angle deviation was 2.97 ± 1.44°.

Conclusions

It is possible to 3D plan and accurately execute the ablative surgery, placement of zygomatic implants, and immediate placement of an implant-retained obturator prosthesis with 3D virtual surgical planning.The next step is to apply the workflow in the operating room in patients planned for maxillectomy.

Immediate dental implant placement and restoration in the edentulous mandible in head and neck cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Oral rehabilitation with dental implants in head and neck cancer (HNC) patients is challenging. After tooth removal prior to radiotherapy, immediate placement of dental implants during panendoscopy or surgery is thought to reduce the oral rehabilitation time improving patients' quality of life.

RECENT FINDINGS

There is lack of consensus on the timing of dental implant placement and loading protocols. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review of the literature regarding the performance and survival rate of immediately inserted dental implants placed prior to radiotherapy. Of 1003 articles, 10 were finally included comparing immediate vs. delayed placement of implants and comparing the effect of radiotherapy on immediately placed implants. Meta-analysis demonstrated a slightly higher survival of immediately placed implants compared with postponed placed implants [risk ratio: 0.92, 95% confidence interval (95% CI): 0.48-1.78, P = 0.81, I2 = 0%]. The other meta-analysis comparing radiotherapy vs. nonradiotherapy showed a clearly better survival of immediately placed implants not having received radiotherapy (risk ratio: 5.02, 95% CI: 0.92-27.38, P = 0.10, I2  = 56%).

SUMMARY

Guidelines are recommended for immediate dental implant placement in the edentulous mandible in HNC patients prior to radiotherapy to allow homogeneity regarding the treatment protocols and thus comparison of treatment outcomes.

Immediate implant placement in edentulous oral cancer patients: a long-term retrospective analysis of 207 patients

Although the functional benefits of implants in the rehabilitation of edentulous cancer patients are well-known, most studies report on postponed implant placement. The outcome of immediate implant placement regarding successful rehabilitation, implant loading and survival is unclear. Two hundred and seven edentulous oral cancer patients that received implants during ablative surgery at the Radboud University Medical Centre between 2000 and 2011 were included. Data regarding the oncological treatment, implant placement, follow-up and prosthodontic rehabilitation were recorded retrospectively with a follow-up period of 5-17 years. Functioning implant-retained dentures were made in 73.9% of the patients. Of the surviving patients, 81.9% had functioning dentures after 2 years and 86.3% after 10 years. Patients with ASA score 1 and younger patients were rehabilitated more frequently. The median time of functioning denture placement was 336 days after surgery, with a negative influence of postoperative radiotherapy. Implant survival was 90.7%, and was lower when the implant was placed in a jaw involved in the tumour. Immediate implant placement during oral cancer surgery led to a high number of edentulous patients rehabilitated with implant-retained dentures, which are placed at an early time.

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.

Medically Complex Dental Implant Patients: Controversies About Systemic Disease and Dental Implant Success/Survival

Advances in dental implant therapy have created choices to enhance the expectations of dental practitioners and their patients with respect to oral rehabilitation at any age after childhood and regardless of, in most cases, medical disabilities. The medical status of the patient however can significantly influence the success rate of dental implant therapy. This article applies the hierarchy of scientific evidence ranging from case reports, retrospective, prospective cohort investigations, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses criteria in order to determine whether dental implant placement in medically compromised patients yields any detrimental sequelae.

Head and Neck Osteosarcoma-The Ongoing Challenge about Reconstruction and Dental Rehabilitation

Head and Neck osteosarcoma is an uncommon disease. Hitherto, the treatment is surgical resection and survival is influenced by the presence of free margins. However, the dimension of the resection may represent a hurdle for an adequate Quality of Life (QOL). Maxillofacial district is a narrow space where the function, esthetics and patient’s relational skills fit together like the gears of a clock. The functional results depend on the type of reconstruction and prosthetic rehabilitation that are both important to guarantee a good aesthetic result and finally increase the patient’s self-esteem. This study aims to report our experience about head and neck (HN) osteosarcoma focusing the attention on reconstructive and dental-rehabilitative problems. It is a retrospective study all patients were surgically treated in our department. Subjects with histological diagnosis of HN osteosarcoma, treated between 2005 and 2017 were included. The demographic characteristics, surgical treatment, eventually secondary reconstruction and prosthetic rehabilitation, performed in the same department, have been collected. The QOL was assessed through the EORTC QLQ-H&N35 (European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Head and Neck 35) questionnaire. Fifteen patients were enrolled, eight received a free flap microsurgical reconstruction. Dental rehabilitation was performed in five cases and a mobile prosthesis was always delivered. Eighteen implants were inserted in fibula bones for three patients; highly porous implants were used.

Mandibular dental implant placement immediately after teeth removal in head and neck cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Little is known about immediate implant placement in head and neck cancer patients. We studied implant survival and functional outcomes of overdentures fabricated on implants placed immediately after removal of the lower dentition during ablative surgery or preceding primary radiotherapy (RT).

METHODS

Inclusion criteria were primary head and neck cancer, dentate lower jaw, and indication for removal of remaining teeth. Two implants to support a mandibular overdenture were placed immediately after extraction of the dentition during ablative surgery, or prior to starting primary radiotherapy. Standardized questionnaires and clinical assessments were conducted (median follow-up 18.5 months, IQR 13.3).

RESULTS

Fifty-eight implants were placed in 29 patients. Four implants were lost (implant survival rate 93.1%). In 9 patients, no functional overdenture could be made. All patients were satisfied with their dentures.

CONCLUSIONS

Combining dental implant placement with removal of remaining teeth preceding head neck oncology treatment results in a favorable treatment outcome.

What is the optimal timing for implant placement in oral cancer patients? A scoping literature review

BACKGROUND

Oral cancer patients can benefit from dental implant placement. Traditionally, implants are placed after completing oncologic treatment (secondary implant placement). Implant placement during ablative surgery (primary placement) in oral cancer patients seems beneficial in terms of early start of oral rehabilitation and limiting additional surgical interventions. Guidelines on the ideal timing of implant placement in oral cancer patients are missing.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a scoping literature review on studies examining the timing of dental implant placement in oral cancer patients and propose a clinical practice recommendations guideline.

METHODS

A literature search for studies dealing with primary and/or secondary implant placement in MEDLINE was conducted (last search December 27, 2019). The primary outcome was 5-year implant survival.

RESULTS

Sixteen out of 808 studies were considered eligible. Both primary and secondary implant placement showed acceptable overall implant survival ratios with a higher pooled 5-year implant survival rate for primary implant placement 92.8% (95% CI: 87.1%-98.5%) than secondary placed implants (86.4%, 95% CI: 77.0%-95.8%). Primary implant placement is accompanied by earlier prosthetic rehabilitation after tumor surgery.

CONCLUSION

Patients with oral cancer greatly benefit from, preferably primary placed, dental implants in their prosthetic rehabilitation. The combination of tumor surgery with implant placement in native mandibular bone should be provided as standard care.

Postimplantation radiation therapy in head and neck cancer patients: Literature review

There is no recommendation regarding the timing for implant surgery in patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) who require postoperative radiation therapy (RT). This systematic review focused on the literature about the outcomes of implants placed during ablative surgery in patients with HNC who underwent postoperative RT. Implants placed after radiation therapy and implants placed in reconstructed jaws were excluded. Four comparative studies involving 755 native mandible primary implants were analyzed. The survival rate with postimplantation RT was 89.6% vs 98.6% in patients with no additional radiation. The overall success of implant-retained overdenture in patients with RT performed postimplantation was 67.4% vs 93.1% in patients with implant surgery that was carried out 1 year after the completion of radiation therapy. Only five cases of osteoradionecrosis (ORN) of the jaw were reported. The outcomes for implant survival rates appear to be positive for irradiated implants.

Impact of 3D virtual planning on reconstruction of mandibular and maxillary surgical defects in head and neck oncology

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review describes the advances in 3D virtual planning for mandibular and maxillary reconstruction surgical defects with full prosthetic rehabilitation. The primary purpose is to provide an overview of various techniques that apply 3D technology safely in primary and secondary reconstructive cases of patients suffering from head and neck cancer.

RECENT FINDINGS

Methods have been developed to overcome the problem of control over the margin during surgery while the crucial decision with regard to resection margin and planning of osteotomies were predetermined by virtual planning. The unlimited possibilities of designing patient-specific implants can result in creative uniquely applied solutions for single cases but should be applied wisely with knowledge of biomechanical engineering principles.

SUMMARY

The high surgical accuracy of an executed 3D virtual plan provides tumor margin control during ablative surgery and the possibility of planned combined use of osseus free flaps and dental implants in the reconstruction in one surgical procedure. A thorough understanding of the effects of radiotherapy on the reconstruction, soft tissue management, and prosthetic rehabilitation is imperative in individual cases when deciding to use dental implants in patients who received radiotherapy.

The use of dental implants, cast bars and sleeve overdentures in oral cancer patients

Surgical resection of an oral tumour (and the associated free flap reconstruction) can significantly alter the oral anatomy. The lack of sulcus depth, alveolar ridge, presence of a mobile flap and limited tongue movement can make it impossible for patients to control a removable prosthesis. To help this cohort of patients, dental implants can be invaluable. The Oral Rehabilitation Team at Central Manchester University Dental Hospital have used dental implants to rehabilitate oral cancer patients for over thirty years. After their resective surgery, a number of patients were dentally rehabilitated with a laboratory-made, precious metal-alloy bar supported by at least four dental implants. A metal-alloy under-sleeve retained overdenture was then provided to fit over the milled bar. The majority of the 50 patients in this case series had tumours in the anterior floor of the mouth. It was noted that 76% of the patients received a rim resection and were reconstructed with a fasciocutaneous, soft tissue free flap. Six percent of patients received a segmental resection and were reconstructed with either a fibular or deep circumflex iliac artery free flap. The dental implants and sleeve overdentures had a survival rate of 100%. None of the dentures lost retention, implying that the frictional grip between the overcasting and the milled bar was sufficient to appease the retention demands of this cohort. However, 10% of patients encountered complications. This would suggest a success (or complication free) rate of 90% for this cohort of 50 oncology patients. This would still imply that milled bars/sleeve overdentures carry a relatively low maintenance burden and may be a useful treatment option for oral cancer patients.

Restorative dentistry and oral rehabilitation: United Kingdom National Multidisciplinary Guidelines

This is the official guideline endorsed by the specialty associations involved in the care of head and neck cancer patients in the UK and provides recommendations on the pre-treatment oral and dental assessment, during and after treatment and oral rehabilitation. Restorative dentists are core members of the multidisciplinary team treating head and neck cancer patients, involved from the treatment planning phase through to long-term rehabilitation.

Long-Term Effect of Surface Roughness and Patients' Factors on Crestal Bone Loss at Dental Implants. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Publications from 2011 to 2015 were selected to evaluate effect of implant surface roughness on long-term bone loss as surrogate for peri-implantitis risk. 87 out of 2,566 papers reported the mean bone loss after at least 5 years of function. Estimation of the proportion of implants with bone loss above 1, 2, and 3 mm as well as analysis the effect of implant surface roughness, smoking, and history of periodontitis was performed. By means of the provided statistical information of bone loss (mean and standard deviation) the prevalence of implants with bone loss ranging from 1 to 3 mm was estimated. The bone loss was used as a surrogate parameter for "peri-implantitis" given the fact that "peri-implantitis" prevalence was not reported in most studies or when reported, the diagnostic criteria were unclear or of dubious quality. The outcome of this review suggests that peri-implant bone loss around minimally rough implant systems was statistically significant less in comparison to the moderately rough and rough implant systems. No statistically significant difference was observed between moderately rough and rough implant systems. The studies that compared implants with comparable design and different surface roughness, showed less average peri-implant bone loss around the less rough surfaces in the meta-analysis. However, due to the heterogeneity of the papers and the multifactorial cause for bone loss, the impact of surface roughness alone seems rather limited and of minimal clinical importance. Irrespective of surface topography or implant brand, the average weighted implant survival rate was 97.3% after 5 years or more of loading. If considering 3 mm bone loss after at least 5 years to represent the presence of "peri-implantitis," less than 5% of the implants were affected. The meta-analysis indicated that periodontal history and smoking habits yielded more bone loss.

Objective validity of an implant-retained overdenture with a ball attachment system after marginal mandibulectomy

Implant-retained overdentures are known to improve oral function, but the clinical impact on patients who have had mandibular resections is still debatable. We have treated 16 patients who had such resections for oral cancer and consequent loss of the alveolar ridge, with overdentures supported by osseointegrated implants and ball attachments. To quantify their functional improvement, we evaluated their maximum bite force and masticatory performance. Their function improved significantly, (from 77.5N - 365N, 371% increase in maximum bite force, p<0.001) and masticatory performance increased (from 2.5 - 7.7, 208%, p<0.0001) after the overdentures had been inserted. While individual changes in maximum bite force showed no significant correlation, those in masticatory performance correlated significantly, which suggests that the subjects with poor masticatory function are likely to benefit from retention of an implant. These results indicate that implant-retained overdentures are an effective way to rehabilitate patients after marginal mandibular resection.

Accuracy of fibula reconstruction using patient-specific CAD/CAM reconstruction plates and dental implants: A new modality for functional reconstruction of mandibular defects

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to analyze the accuracy of mandibular reconstruction using patient-specific computer-aided designed and computer-aided manufactured (CAD/CAM) reconstruction plates as a guide to place fibula grafts and dental implants in a one-stage procedure using pre-operative 3D virtual planning.

METHODS

Seven consecutive patients were analyzed retrospectively, the 3D accuracy of placement of the fibula grafts and dental implants was compared to the virtual plan.

RESULTS

Six out of seven flaps survived for an average follow-up time of 9.4 months. The outcome was compared to the virtual plan, superimposed on the mandible. For the fibula segments, the mean deviation (SD) was 3.0 (1.8) mm and the mean angulation (SD) was 4.2° (3.2°). For the implants, the mean deviation (SD) was 3.3 (1.3) mm and the mean angulation (SD) was 13.0° (6.7°). The mean (SD) mandibular resection plane deviation was 1.8 (0.9) mm.

CONCLUSIONS

A patient-specific reconstruction plate is a valuable tool in the reconstruction of mandibular defects with fibula grafts and dental implants. Implant angulation showed a greater deviation from the virtual plans in patients with a sharp ventral fibula rim, where the guide is removed after pilot drilling of the implants.