Success of dental implants in vascularised fibular osteoseptocutaneous flaps used as onlay grafts after marginal mandibulectomy

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.

Soft Tissue Management: A Critical Part of Implant Rehabilitation After Vascularized Free-Flap Reconstruction

PURPOSE

Implant rehabilitation after jaw reconstruction is challenging, and postoperative peri-implantitis is common. Our aim was to present our management protocol for implant rehabilitation after vascularized free-flap reconstruction and report the outcomes of soft tissue management.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included patients who received vascularized free-flap reconstruction, implant rehabilitation, apical reposition flaps (ARFs), and free gingival grafts (FGGs) at Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology from January 1, 2009 to January 1, 2020. We assessed the association of age, gender, primary disease, flap choice, number and position of implants, timing of ARFs and FGGs, fixation stent use, and restoration type with the occurrence of peri-implantitis. Probing pocket depth, bleeding on probing, and marginal bone loss of the implants were measured as well. The data were analyzed by descriptive statistics, Kaplan-Meier statistics, and Cox regression analysis.

RESULTS

In total, 19 patients with 65 implants were included. The implants were placed immediately or 7 to 44 months after reconstruction of the jaw with fibular (n = 17) or iliac flaps (n = 2). ARFs and FGGs were performed 0 to 11 months later. No implants were lost. The mean probing pocket depth, bleeding on probing, and marginal bone loss at 26.6 ± 16.8 months were 3.5 ± 0.9 mm, 70.4 ± 35.1%, and 0.6 ± 0.4 mm, respectively. The incidence of peri-implantitis was 32.3%, showing no significant associations with the gender, age, primary disease, flap choice, number and position of implants, timing of ARFs and FGGs, use of a fixation stent, and type of restoration based on the adjusted multivariate model (P > .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Soft tissue management helps generate firmly attached keratinized mucosa around the implants, leads to a more precise impression, and reduces peri-implant bone loss. It should be considered as a critical part of implant rehabilitation after vascularized free-flap reconstruction.