Changes in Peri-Implant Bone Level and Effect of Potential Influential Factors on Dental Implants in Irradiated and Nonirradiated Patients Following Multimodal Therapy Due to Head and Neck Cancer: A Retrospective Study

Long-Term Survival of Dental Implants in Irradiated Patients

The surgical ablation of head and neck cancer followed by radiotherapy often leads to unfavorable functional and aesthetic outcomes. Studies have demonstrated that these outcomes can significantly impact quality of life. Dental implants play a crucial role in rehabilitation by facilitating the use of suprastructures and obturators. However, the long-term survival of dental implants in patients who have undergone radiotherapy remains uncertain, raising several questions. These include determining the optimal timing for dental implantation (before or after radiotherapy), identifying the radiotherapy threshold for implant loss, and considering the role of hyperbaric oxygen therapy. These and other related concerns will be addressed in the following article.

Dental implant considerations in patients with systemic diseases: An updated comprehensive review

BACKGROUND

Various medical conditions and the drugs used to treat them have been shown to impede or complicate dental implant surgery. It is crucial to carefully monitor the medical status and potential post-operative complications of patients with systemic diseases, particularly elderly patients, to minimize the risk of health complications that may arise.

AIM

The purpose of this study was to review the existing evidence on the viability of dental implants in patients with systemic diseases and to provide practical recommendations to achieve the best possible results in the corresponding patient population.

METHODS

The information for our study was compiled using data from PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar databases and searched separately for each systemic disease included in our work until October 2023. An additional manual search was also performed to increase the search sensitivity. Only English-language publications were included and assessed according to titles, abstracts and full texts.

RESULTS

In total, 6784 studies were found. After checking for duplicates and full-text availability, screening for the inclusion criteria and manually searching reference lists, 570 articles remained to be considered in this study.

CONCLUSION

In treating patients with systemic conditions, the cost-benefit analysis should consider the patient's quality of life and expected lifespan. The success of dental implants depends heavily on ensuring appropriate maintenance therapy, ideal oral hygiene standards, no smoking and avoiding other risk factors. Indications and contraindications for dental implants in cases of systemic diseases are yet to be more understood; broader and hardcore research needs to be done for a guideline foundation.

Long-Term Outcomes of Dental Rehabilitation and Quality of Life after Microvascular Alveolar Ridge Reconstruction in Patients with Head and Neck Cancer

Background/Objectives: Dental rehabilitation after extended tumour resection and jaw reconstruction is challenging. The present study aimed to report the prosthetic outcome and quality of life (QoL) in patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) after microvascular alveolar ridge reconstruction. Methods: The prosthetic outcomes of all consecutive patients with HNC who underwent microvascular alveolar ridge reconstruction at the University Hospital Salzburg between 2011 and 2018 were investigated. Oral health-related QoL (OHrQoL) and overall QoL were assessed using the validated Oral Health Impact Profile-49 (OHIP-49) and Short Form-36 questionnaires. Results: During the study period, 115 consecutive patients with head and neck cancer underwent microvascular jaw reconstruction. Among them, 23.3% and 27.4% received conventional tissue-borne prostheses and implant-supported prostheses, respectively, while 48.7% did not undergo dental rehabilitation. The prosthetic outcome was not associated with tumour stage (p = 0.32). Oral health-related quality of life (OHrQoL) was best in patients with implant-supported dental rehabilitation (OHIP-49 median score = 7) and worst in those with conventional removable dentures (OHIP-49 median score = 54). The corresponding OHIP-49 median score for patients who could not undergo dental rehabilitation was 30.5. All Short Form-36 subscale scores were equal to or higher than the malignancy norm scores. Conclusions: After microvascular jaw reconstruction, approximately one-third of the HNC patients received adequate implant-supported dental rehabilitation. However, the risk of dental rehabilitation failure was 50%. The different prosthetic outcomes affected OHrQoL, but not overall QoL.

Survival of osseointegrated implants in head and neck cancer patients submitted to multimodal treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To investigate the survival rate in implants placement in irradiated and non-irradiated bone in patients undergoing head and neck cancer (HNC) treatment. We focused on the consequences of the main complications, such as osteoradionecrosis and peri-implantitis.

METHODS

An electronic search conducted by PRISMA protocol was performed. Full texts were carefully assessed, and data were assimilated into a tabular form for discussion and consensus among the expert panel. The quality assessment and the risk of bias are verified by Joanna Briggs Institute checklist (JBI) and The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), and Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) assessment tool.

RESULTS

A total of 452 records were identified in the based on our PICOs strategy and after screening, 19 articles were included in the descriptive analysis of the review. Totaling 473 implants placed in irradiated and non-irradiated bone, and 31.6% of the patients were over 60 years of age. 57.9%) performed implant placement in a period of 12 months or more after the ending of radiotherapy. Only 5 studies had a follow-up period longer than 5 years after implant placement, of which three were used for the meta-analysis. In the meta-analysis of 5-year survival rate, analysis of implants in irradiated bone was assessed; a random effect model was used and a weighted proportion (PP) of 93.13% (95% CI: 87.20-99.06; p < 0.001), and in the 5-year survival rate, analysis of implants in non-irradiated bone was analysed; a fixed effect model was used and a weighted proportion (PP) of 98.52% survival (95% CI: 97.56-99.48, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Survival rates of implants placed in irradiated bone are clinically satisfactory after a follow-up of 5 years, with a fewer percentage than in implants placed in non-irradiated bone after metanalyses performed.

Vestibuloplasty and its impact on the long-term survival and success of dental implants in irradiated and non-irradiated patients after head and neck tumor therapy: a retrospective study

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate the influence of vestibuloplasty on the clinical success and survival of dental implants in head and neck tumor patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective single-center study was conducted. All patients received surgical therapy of a tumor in the head or neck and underwent surgical therapy and, if necessary, radiotherapy/radiochemotherapy. Patients with compromised soft tissue conditions received vestibuloplasty using a split thickness skin graft and an implant-retained splint. Implant survival and success and the influence of vestibuloplasty, gender, radiotherapy, and localizations were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 247 dental implants in 49 patients (18 women and 31 men; mean age of 63.6 years) were evaluated. During the observation period, 6 implants were lost. The cumulative survival rate was 99.1% after 1 year and 3 years and 93.1% after 5 years for patients without vestibuloplasty, compared to a survival and success rate of 100% after 5 years in patients with vestibuloplasty. Additionally, patients with vestibuloplasty showed significantly lower peri-implant bone resorption rates after 5 years (mesial: p = 0.003; distal: p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates a high cumulative survival and success rate of dental implants after 5 years in head and neck tumor patients, irrespective of irradiation. Patients with vestibuloplasty showed a significantly higher rate of implant survival and significantly lower peri-implant bone resorption after 5 years.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Vestibuloplasty should always be considered and applied if required by the anatomical situations to achieve high implant survival/success rates in head and neck tumor patients.

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.

Influence of Radiotherapy on Ossification of Vascularized Osseous Reconstruction of the Jaw: A Radiological Retrospective Cohort Study Based on Panoramic Radiographs

Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of irradiation and time of irradiation on the ossification of jaws reconstructed with free bone grafts. Methods: In total, 100 reconstructions of the jaw were retrospectively evaluated for ossification between bone segments by two raters based on postoperative panoramic radiographs (immediate postOP, approximately 6, 12 and 24 months follow-up). Three subgroups were divided according to the time of irradiation: preoperative radiation therapy (n = 41), postoperative radiation therapy (n = 26) and patients without any radiation therapy (n = 33) as the control group. Ossification time and influencing factors were documented. Results: The fastest ossification with a median of 304 ± 37 days was observed (p < 0.001) in the nonirradiated control group. No significant difference (p = 0.087) in ossification was found between the pre- (447 ± 136 days) and postoperative (510 ± 112 days) radiation groups. Ossification between two graft segments (336 ± 38 days) showed significantly (p < 0.001) faster ossification than between the original and grafted bone (448 ± 85 days). Moreover, closer initial contact between the segments resulted in faster ossification (p < 0.001). When analyzing cofactors, tobacco consumption was the only negative factor aggravating ossification (p = 0.006). Conclusion: Head and neck radiation corresponded with the impaired and prolonged ossification of jaw reconstructions with free bone grafts. There was no difference in ossification if radiotherapy was performed before or after reconstructive surgery. A close bony contact was particularly important for ossification between the original and grafted bone.

Influence of radiotherapy on dental implants placed in individuals before diagnosed with head and neck cancer: focus on implant-bed-specific radiation dosage

OBJECTIVES

The influence of radiotherapy on implants placed before diagnosed as head and neck cancer (HNC) is a potentially informative but poorly explored topic. The aims of this study were to investigate the influence of implant-bed-specific radiation dose on dental implants and to evaluate the impact of these implants on radiation dosimetry.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study with 58 irradiated patients that received dental implant restorations before undergoing radiation treatment for HNC. The radiological success rate and the peri-implant bone resorption values were measured radiographically at 1 and 3 years after radiotherapy. Patients with no implants matching tumor site and stage served as a control group (n = 58).

RESULTS

The median implant-bed-specific radiation dose was 40.3 Gy, which was significantly lower than tumor bed 62.4 Gy. An implant-bed-specific radiation dose higher than 40.0 Gy showed a significantly decreased radiologic success rate when compared to lower doses. Finally, evaluation of the radiation treatment plans revealed similar radiation hot spots in the test group of patients with implants and those of the control group.

CONCLUSION

Our study confirms that radiotherapy negatively worsens peri-implant bone resorption, especially for implant-bed-specific dose more than 40 Gy, and the presence of implants within the radiation fields does not alter radiation dosimetry. The findings could be clinically informative to both surgeons and radio-oncologists.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The interactions between radiotherapy and implants placed prior to radiotherapy treatment remain a largely unexplored topic. Based on the analysis of 3-dimensional modulated radiation plans, this study demonstrates the impact of implant-bed-specific radiation dose on marginal bone resorption of implants placed pre-radiation and considers the influence of these implants on radiation dosimetry.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

CHICTR2100051923: ( http://www.chictr.org.cn/usercenter.aspx ).

Head and neck radiotherapy-induced changes in dentomaxillofacial structures detected on panoramic radiographs: A systematic review

Purpose

This study aimed to summarize the impact of neck and head radiation treatment on maxillofacial structures detected on panoramic radiographs.

Materials and Methods

In this systematic review, the authors searched PubMed Central, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and Google Scholar for original research studies up to February 2020 that included the following Medical Subject Headings keywords: words related to “radiotherapy” and synonyms combined with keywords related to “panoramic radiography” and “oral diagnosis” and synonyms. Only original studies in English that investigated the maxillofacial effects of radiotherapy via panoramic radiographs were included. The quality of the selected manuscripts was evaluated by assessing the risk of bias using Cochrane's ROBINS-I tool for non-randomized studies.

Results

Thirty-three studies were eligible and included in this review. The main objectives pertained to the assessment of the effects of radiation on maxillofacial structures, including bone architecture alterations, periodontal space widening, teeth development abnormalities, osteoradionecrosis, and implant bone loss. The number of participants evaluated ranged from 8 to 176.

Conclusion

The interaction between ionizing radiation and maxillofacial structures results in hazard to the tissues involved, particularly the bone tissue, periosteum, connective tissue of the mucosa, and endothelium. Hard tissue changes due to radiation therapy can be detected on panoramic radiographs.

Significance of site-specific radiation dose and technique for success of implant-based prosthetic rehabilitation in irradiated head and neck cancer patients-A cohort study

BACKGROUND

Radiotherapy aggravates implant-based prosthetic rehabilitation in patients with head and neck cancer.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the impact of radiation dose at implant and parotid gland site for prosthetic rehabilitation.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The retrospective study includes 121 irradiated head and neck cancer patients with 751 inserted implants. Radiation doses on implant bed and parotid gland site were recorded by 3-dimensional modulated radiation plans. Implant success was clinically and radiographically evaluated according to modified Albrektsson criteria and compared to treatment- and patient-specific data.

RESULTS

Implant overall survival after 5 years was 92.4% with an implant success rate of 74.9%. Main reasons for implant failure were marginal bone resorption (20.9%), implant not in situ or unloaded (9.6%) and peri-implantitis (7.5%). A mean radiation dose of 62.6 Gy was applied with a mean parotid dose of 35 Gy. Modulating radiation techniques went along with lower grades of xerostomia (p < 0.001). At implant site mean doses of 57.5, 42.0, and 32.3 Gy were recorded for oral, oropharyngeal, and hypopharyngeal/laryngeal carcinoma, respectively. Implant success inversely correlated to radiation dose at implant site. Strong predictors for implant failure in uni- and multivariate analysis were implant-specific dose >50 Gy (HR 7.9), parotid dose >30 Gy (HR 2.3), bone (HR 14.5) and soft tissue (HR 4.5) transplants, bad oral hygiene (HR 3.8), nonmodulated radiation treatment planning (HR 14.5), and nontelescopic prosthetics (HR 5.2).

CONCLUSION

Radiotherapy impedes implant success in a dose-dependent manner at implant site. Modern radiation techniques effectively reduce xerostomia favoring implant-based prosthetic rehabilitation. Implantation in bone grafts is more critical and telescopic-retained overdentures should be preferred.

Retrospective long-term clinical evaluation of implant-prosthetic rehabilitations after head and neck cancer therapy

OBJECTIVE

To assess clinical and patient-reported outcomes of implant-prosthetic rehabilitations in patients with a history of head-neck cancer (HNC), treated with tumor resection without (TR) or with adjuvant radiotherapy (TR/RT). A healthy cohort rehabilitated with the same reconstructive protocols served as control group (C).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 28 women and 29 men were considered in the present retrospective study. Participants received 322 implants, finally supporting 79 prosthetic reconstructions. Primary outcome was the assessment of implant and prosthetic survival rates. Furthermore peri-implant soft tissue parameters (attached peri-implant mucosa, AM; modified bleeding and plaque indices, mBI/mPI; probing depth, PD) and prosthetic technical complications were documented. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) by means of visual analog scales (VAS) and the Oral Health Impact Profile German 14 form (OHIP G14) were collected. For statistical purposes Chi-square and Mann-Whitney-U-Test were adapted.

RESULTS

After a mean follow-up of 81.2 ± 50.3 months, implant survival rate was 98.1% (HNC-TR), 98.2% (HNC-TR/RT) and 100.0% (C), respectively (four implants failed in the HNC groups). HNC-TR/RT showed significant higher mPI and mBI compared to C. Within HNC-TR/RT, vestibuloplasty significantly reduced mBI and PD values. No failures occurred at the prosthetic level. Overall, higher VAS scores were reported for bar- compared with Locator-retained prostheses. Furthermore, increased OHIP G14 values resulted for HNC-TR/RT.

CONCLUSIONS

High survival rates on implant and prosthetic level were observed. The use of soft tissue grafts resulted in stabilization of the peri-implant mucosa in irradiated patients. In terms of retention and chewing ability, participants preferred bars over Locator attachments.

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.

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.

Frontal sinus augmentation: Preliminary results of a new approach in prosthetic orbital reconstruction

PURPOSE

Reliable application of endosseous implants for prosthetic facial reconstruction depends on the bone volume available at the defect site. Regarding the orbit, sufficient bone presentation in the medial superior orbital rim is limited due to the frontal sinus. The aim of this article is to report for the first time on the augmentation of the frontal sinus for gaining bone volume for supraorbital implant placement.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between 2007 and 2014, five patients with orbital exenteration were treated by frontal sinus augmentation using autogenous cancellous bone graft from the ilium. Extraoral implants for prosthetic orbit reconstruction were placed 4-7 months later. In advance, cadaver surgery was performed to prove the feasibility of the method. Surgical technique is described, and intraoperative images are provided.

RESULTS

The frontal sinus was successfully augmented in all five patients. No major complications related to the procedure were observed. A total of nine orbital implants were inserted in the augmented bone, thereof one sleeping implant. Six implants were restored prosthetically, two implants were lost at exposure. The observation period ranged from 6 to 97 months (mean: 52.8 months). Mean time for patient rehabilitation was 13 months. High patient satisfaction was achieved with the implant-retained orbital prosthesis.

CONCLUSION

The augmentation of the frontal sinus allows implant placement by providing sufficient bone volume in the medial supraorbital rim. Considering the surgical success of this method and patient satisfaction, this new approach is concluded to be a viable option in a unique subset of patients.

Oral Cancer around Dental Implants Appearing in Patients with\without a History of Oral or Systemic Malignancy: a Systematic Review

Objectives

The purpose of this article is to systematically review the circumstance of oral cancer around osseointegrated dental implants.

Material and Methods

An electronic literature search was conducted through the MEDLINE (PubMed) and EMBASE databases. The search was restricted for articles published during the last 21 years from January 1996 to April 2017 and articles were limited to English language.

Results

A total of 35 articles were reviewed, and 19 of the most relevant articles that are suitable to the criteria were selected. Case reports were analysed when oral cancer was present in patients with dental implants. Finally, the present data included 28 patients.

Conclusions

A direct link between dental implants and oral cancer was not found. It was observed that there were no significant differences in number of incidences of oral cancer between patients with history of malignancy and those without. More research should be made to document such cases. It was noticed that in many cases oral cancer around dental implant present itself as peri-implantitis, correct differential diagnosis is essential in such cases.