The use of implant retained mandibular prostheses in the oral rehabilitation of head and neck cancer patients. A review and rationale for treatment planning

Evaluation of radiation therapy on grafted and non-grafted defects: an experimental rat model

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess the effects of a single-dose radiation therapy (15 Gy) on grafted and non-grafted defects, bone microarchitecture, and collagen maturity.

METHODOLOGY

Bone defects were surgically created in rat femurs. The right femur defect was filled with blood clot (group "Clot") and the left femur defect by deproteinized bovine bone mineral graft (group "Xenograft"). The animals were divided into two groups: without radiation therapy (nRTX) and with radiation therapy (RTX). Microtomographic (bone volume fraction, BV/TV; trabecular thickness, Tb.Th; trabecular number, Tb.N; trabecular separation, Tb.Sp), histological, and histomorphometric analyses were performed 14 days after the surgery. Two-way ANOVA with Tukey post hoc test was used to compare the groups (α=5%).

RESULTS

Microtomographic analysis revealed that radiation therapy led to smaller BV/TV and Tb.N in both Clot and Xenograft groups. Regardless of radiation therapy, defects filled with xenografts showed a larger Tb.N. In contrast, the Clot group demonstrated increased BV/TV and Tb.Th. The histomorphometric results were consistent with those obtained by microtomography. Intermediately and densely packed collagen were predominant among the groups. Histological analysis revealed disorganized bone formation bridging the cortical borders of the lesions in the RTX group. The involvement of primary bone with graft particles was commonly observed in all xenograft groups, and radiation therapy did not affect the percentage of bone-graft contact.

CONCLUSION

Single-dose radiation therapy affected bone repair, resulting in a smaller amount of newly formed bone in both grafted and non-grafted defects.

Osseointegrated dental implants that will undergo radiotherapy. Does risk of osteoradionecrosis exist? A scoping review

OBJECTIVE

Given the absence of a standardized action protocol for treating patients with dental implants (DIs) who are subjected to radiotherapy (RT), we have conducted an extensive review and analysis of published literature on this subject. Our objective is to gain a comprehensive understanding of the impact of RT on the bone surrounding osseointegrated implants during and after treatment.

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted a literature review using PubMed (MEDLINE) to identify studies describing the effects of RT on preexisting osseointegrated and/or loaded DIs. Articles published between January 1963 and December 2023 were considered for inclusion.

RESULTS

A total of 1,126 articles were retrieved, 64 full articles were reviewed, and only 13 articles were included in this review upon meeting the criteria. A total of 667 patients and 2,409 implants were included. Osteoradionecrosis (ORN) was observed in approximately 19 implants following antineoplastic treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

The interaction between DIs and RT is a complex and multifaceted issue that requires further research and clinical guidance. Although certain studies indicate a possible connection between DIs, radiation, and ORN risk, the precise relationship remains unclear. Factors such as radiation dosage, implant characteristics, material, and timing of placement significantly influence this association.

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.

Survival rate and complication-free survival rate of implant-retained prostheses in the oral rehabilitation of patients with head and neck cancer: A retrospective evaluation of a cohort from a regional service

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Literature reporting on the prosthetic survival and complications of implant-retained prostheses in patients with head and neck cancer is sparse.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this retrospective study was to present the survival rates and complication-free survival rates of both fixed and removable implant-retained oral prostheses in patients with head and neck cancer while also reporting on the frequency and causes of failure and complications for each prosthesis type.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis of the prosthetic survival rates and complication-free survival rates of implant-retained oral prostheses and the frequency and causes of failure and complications in patients with head and neck cancer treated in a regional unit from 2012 to 2017 was performed. Differences in categorical and continuous data were assessed for statistical significance by using the Pearson chi-squared test, Fisher exact test, t test, and analysis of variance as appropriate. Cox proportional hazard regression models were fitted to evaluate the association between prostheses type, clinical and medical factors, and the outcomes of survival and complication-free survival. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the frequency and type of prosthetic complications.

RESULTS

The sample was composed of 153 patients diagnosed with head and neck cancer who had completed implant-retained prosthodontic rehabilitation and had been provided with 221 prostheses. The 5-year survival rate was 87% for maxillary fixed prostheses, 79% for mandibular fixed, 66% for maxillary removable, and 50% for mandibular removable. Hazard ratios were calculated showing that the 5-year survival rate of a mandibular removable prosthesis (HR=5.1; 95% CI 1.60-16.25) (P=.006) was greater than that of a maxillary fixed prosthesis (HR=1.0). The 5-year complication-free survival rate was highest for mandibular fixed prostheses (62%), followed by maxillary fixed (58%), maxillary removable (36%), and mandibular removable prostheses (29%). Hazard ratios showed that the 5-year survival rate of maxillary removable (HR=1.91; 95% CI 1.01-3.66) (P=.048) and mandibular removable prosthesis (HR=2.29; 95% CI 1.23-4.25) (P=.009) was greater than that of a maxillary fixed prosthesis (HR=1.0). Variables of radiotherapy, grafting, age, and sex and their influence on the survival rate and complication-free survival rate were assessed but were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

This evaluation indicated that fixed implant-retained prostheses had a higher 5-year survival rate and 5-year complication-free survival rate than removable implant-retained prostheses in patients with head and neck cancer.

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.

Oral Surgery and Osteoradionecrosis in Patients Undergoing Head and Neck Radiation Therapy: An Update of the Current Literature

Osteoradionecrosis (ORN) is a serious long-term complication of head and neck radiotherapy (RT), which is often triggered by dental extractions. It results from avascular aseptic necrosis due to irradiated bone damage. ORN is challenging to treat and can lead to severe complications. Furthermore, ORN causes pain and distress, significantly reducing the patient's quality of life. There is currently no established preventive strategy. This narrative review aims to provide an update for the clinicians on the risk of ORN associated with oral surgery in head and neck RT patients, with a focus on the timing suitable for the oral surgery and possible ORN preventive treatments. An electronic search of articles was performed by consulting the PubMed database. Intervention and observational studies were included. A multidisciplinary approach to the patient is highly recommended to mitigate the risk of RT complications. A dental visit before commencing RT is highly advised to minimize the need for future dental extractions after irradiation, and thus the risk of ORN. Post-RT preventive strategies, in case of dento-alveolar surgery, have been proposed and include antibiotics, hyperbaric oxygen (HBO), and the combined use of pentoxifylline and tocopherol ("PENTO protocol"), but currently there is a lack of established standards of care. Some limitations in the use of HBO involve the low availability of HBO facilities, its high costs, and specific clinical contraindications; the PENTO protocol, on the other hand, although promising, lacks clinical trials to support its efficacy. Due to the enduring risk of ORN, removable prostheses are preferable to dental implants in these patients, as there is no consensus on the appropriate timing for their safe placement. Overall, established standards of care and high-quality evidence are lacking concerning both preventive strategies for ORN as well as the timing of the dental surgery. There is an urgent need to improve research for more efficacious clinical decision making.

Clinical outcomes and periodontal conditions of dental implants placed in free fibula flaps (FFF): a retrospective study with a mean follow-up of 6 years

OBJECTIVES

Up-to-date literature regarding long-term success of implant rehabilitations after microvascular reconstructions with free fibula flap (FFF) is still very scarce. This study aimed to evaluate clinical outcomes, especially related to oral hygiene conditions, of patients rehabilitated with this technique.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 25 patients who underwent maxillofacial reconstructive surgery with FFF were retrospectively evaluated for soft tissues conditions, oral hygiene habits, and implant survival and success, assessed with a mean follow-up of 6 (range 2-15) years after loading.

RESULTS

Fourteen patients received full-arch fixed prostheses and 11 removable bar-supported overdentures. At the follow-up evaluation, 52% of prostheses did not allow proper accessibility for oral hygiene. Overall prosthetic survival was 100%, and implant survival and success were respectively 93.6% and 72%. Prevalence of peri-implantitis was 29% at implant level and that at patient level 96%.

CONCLUSIONS

Six-year clinical outcomes of this study reveal that poor oral hygiene practices and compliance by patients who underwent maxillofacial reconstruction with FFF are significantly associated with peri-implant disease.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Findings of the present study underline the need by clinicians for a careful assessment, in reference to a specific implant therapy, of patient's prosthetic accessibility for oral hygiene procedures.

Is All-on-four effective in case of partial mandibular resection? A 3D finite element study

INTRODUCTION

The aim of the work is to analyze stress distribution on 3D Finite Element (FE) models at bone, implant, and framework level of different designs for fixed implant-supported prostheses in completely edentulous patients, comparing results on whole and partially resected mandibles.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

3D anisotropic FE models of a whole and of a partially resected mandible were created using a TC scan of a cadaver's totally edentulous mandible. Two types of totally implant-supported rehabilitation were simulated, with four implants: parallel fixtures on whole mandible and on resected mandible, All-on-four-configured fixtures on whole mandible and on partially resected mandible. A superstructure comprising only metal components of a prosthetic framework were added, while stress distribution and its maximum values were analyzed at bone, implant, and superstructure level.

RESULTS

The results highlight that: (1) implant stresses are greater on the whole mandible than on the resected one; (2) framework and cancellous-bone stresses are comparable in all cases; (3) on the resected mandible, maximum stress levels at the cortical-bone/implant interface are higher than in whole-mandible rehabilitation. The opposite applies for maximum stresses on external cortical bone, measured radially with respect to the implant from the point of maximum stress at the interface.

DISCUSSION

On the resected mandible, All-on-four configuration proved biomechanically superior to parallel implants considering radial stresses on implants and cortical bone. Still, maximum stresses increase at the bone/implant interface. A design with four parallel implants minimizes the stress on a resected mandible while, on the whole mandible, the All-on-four rehabilitation proves superior at all levels (bone, implant, and framework).

Avoiding implant-related complications in medically compromised patients with or without unhealthy lifestyle/Elevated oxidative stress

Increased human life expectancy broadens the alternatives for missing teeth and played a role in the widespread use of dental implants and related augmentation procedures for the aging population. Though, many of these patients may have one or more diseases. These systemic conditions may directly lead to surgical complications, compromise implant/bone healing, or influence long-term peri-implant health and its response to biologic nuisances. Offering patients credible expectations regarding intra- and postoperative complications and therapeutic prognosis is an ethical and legal obligation. Clear identification of potential types of adverse effects, complications, or errors is important for decision-making processes as they may be related to different local, systemic, and technical aspects. Therefore, the present review structures the underlying biological mechanisms, clinical evidence, and clinical recommendations for the most common systemic risk factors for implant-related complications.

Post-treatment evaluation of oral health-related quality of life in head and neck cancer patients after dental implant rehabilitation

Objectives To assess oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) following oral rehabilitation using dental implants in patients treated for head and neck cancer (HNC).Materials and methods Service evaluation: patients who had received dental implants during their oral rehabilitation were invited to take part (n = 81). In total, 37 patients completed questionnaires and underwent a structured interview regarding OHRQoL after rehabilitation. Analysis was by descriptive statistics for questionnaire and thematic analysis of interview.Results Rehabilitation types were 17 fixed implant prostheses, 12 removable implant prostheses and 8 combination. Functional problems relating to HNC treatment had a significant effect on OHRQoL and persisted after rehabilitation. Removable implant prostheses had more problems associated than fixed. At interview, patients described: functional and emotional benefits of oral rehabilitation involving implants; ease of keeping implants clean; variations in ability of primary care dentists to maintain rehabilitation; thankfulness to have received treatment; long duration of rehabilitation; and problems encountered while undergoing rehabilitation.Conclusions HNC treatment results in functional and emotional difficulties, which has a significant impact on OHRQoL. Use of dental implants in fixed or removable oral rehabilitation can result in good OHRQoL as assessed by patients at treatment completion, although some functional difficulties often remain.

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.

Dental radiation dosimetric maps from intensity-modulated radiation therapy planning for head and neck cancers

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to create dental radiation maps to calculate the mean dose to individual teeth, maxilla and mandible using intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT).

METHODS

Eighteen common clinical settings were chosen. Radiation plans were extracted, and each tooth was contoured at its junction with the gingiva and labeled based on the Universal/American numbering system.

RESULTS

All patients were treated with prescribed doses of 50-70 Gy in 1.66-2 Gy/fraction. Patients receiving mean doses >50 Gy to the teeth, mandible, and maxilla included those with advanced tumors of the oral cavity and gross lymphadenopathy of level 1b.

CONCLUSION

We believe this to be the first study generating dosimetric maps of estimated doses to each tooth and each third of the mandible and the maxilla for common examples of head and neck cancer faced by radiation oncologists. Adoption of these dental maps may help improve clinical workflow efficiency.

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.

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.

Survival of Dental Implants in Oncology Patients versus Non-Oncology Patients: A 5-Year Retrospective Study

Patients with a history of cancer are increasingly common in the dental office. Treating cancer patients requires a multidisciplinary team, which should include the dentist, in order to control the complications that occur in the oral cavity and also to recover the patient undergoing treatment in any of its types: surgical, medical, radiotherapeutic, or its possible combinations. Dental implants can be a safe and predictable treatment option for prosthetic rehabilitation. The aim of this paper is to describe in retrospect the success rate of osseointegrated implants in oncology and non-oncology patients placed by the Master of Dentistry in Oncology and Immunocompromised Patients, as well as the Master of Medicine, Surgery and Oral Implantology of the University of Barcelona Dental Hospital, between July 2011 and March 2016. 466 patients were reviewed, with a total of 1405 implants placed, considering the oncological history of the patients and the implant success rate. The total success rate in the concerned period was 96.65%. When comparing cancer patients with healthy ones, the success rate has been 93.02% in the first case, and 97.16% in the latter. According to the literature review, our results encourage implant placement in cancer patients, it is important to recognize that this is an analysis of a complex care pathway with a large number of confounding variables. However, the findings should not be considered as generalizable.

The use of 3D virtual surgical planning and computer aided design in reconstruction of maxillary surgical defects

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The present review describes the latest development of 3D virtual surgical planning (VSP) and computer aided design (CAD) for reconstruction of maxillary defects with an aim of fully prosthetic rehabilitation. The purpose is to give an overview of different methods that use CAD in maxillary reconstruction in patients with head and neck cancer.

RECENT FINDINGS

3D VSP enables preoperative planning of resection margins and osteotomies. The current 3D VSP workflow is expanded with multimodal imaging, merging decision supportive information. Development of more personalized implants is possible using CAD, individualized virtual muscle modelling and topology optimization. Meanwhile the translation of the 3D VSP towards surgery is improved by techniques like intraoperative imaging and augmented reality. Recent improvements of preoperative 3D VSP enables surgical reconstruction and/or prosthetic rehabilitation of the surgical defect in one combined procedure.

SUMMARY

With the use of 3D VSP and CAD, ablation surgery, reconstructive surgery, and prosthetic rehabilitation can be planned preoperatively. Many reconstruction possibilities exist and a choice depends on patient characteristics, tumour location and experience of the surgeon. The overall objective in patients with maxillary defects is to follow a prosthetic-driven reconstruction with the aim to restore facial form, oral function, and do so in accordance with the individual needs of the patient.

Biomechanical and morphological changes produced by ionizing radiation on bone tissue surrounding dental implant

Objective:

This study analyzed the effect of ionizing radiation on bone microarchitecture and biomechanical properties in the bone tissue surrounding a dental implant.

Methodology:

Twenty rabbits received three dental morse taper junction implants: one in the left tibia and two in the right tibia. The animals were randomized into two groups: the nonirradiated group (control group) and the irradiated group, which received 30 Gy in a single dose 2 weeks after the implant procedure. Four weeks after the implant procedure, the animals were sacrificed, and the implant/bone specimens were used for each experiment. The specimens (n=10) of the right tibia were examined by microcomputed tomography to measure the cortical volume (CtV, mm³), cortical thickness (CtTh, mm) and porosity (CtPo, %). The other specimens (n=10) were examined by dynamic indentation to measure the elastic modulus (E, GPa) and Vickers hardness (VHN, N/mm²) in the bone. The specimens of the left tibia (n=10) were subjected to pull-out tests to calculate the failure load (N), displacement (mm) up to the failure point and interface stiffness (N/mm). In the irradiated group, two measurements were performed: close, at 1 mm surrounding the implant surface, and distant, at 2.5 mm from the external limit of the first measurement. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA, Tukey’s test and Student’s t-test (α=0.05).

Results:

The irradiated bone closer to the implant surface had lower elastic modulus (E), Vickers hardness (VHN), Ct.Th, and Ct.V values and a higher Ct.Po value than the bone distant to the implant (P<0.04). The irradiated bone that was distant from the implant surface had lower E, VHN, and Ct.Th values and a higher Ct.Po value than the nonirradiated bone (P<0.04). The nonirradiated bone had higher failure loads, displacements and stiffness values than the irradiated bone (P<0.02).

Conclusion:

Ionizing radiation in dental implants resulted in negative effects on the microarchitecture and biomechanical properties of bone tissue, mainly near the surface of the implant.

Dental implant-based oral rehabilitation in patients reconstructed with free fibula flaps: Clinical study with a follow-up 3 to 6 years

BACKGROUND

Oral rehabilitation of patients after maxillofacial reconstructive surgery represents a challenge and stable prosthetic retention can be achieved with the use of dental implants.

PURPOSE

This retrospective report aimed to evaluate implant-based oral rehabilitation following maxillofacial reconstruction with free fibula flaps.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 14 patients who had reconstruction with fibula flaps either by CAD/CAM or conventional surgery were included in this study. A total of 56 implants (40 in flaps, 16 in native bone) were evaluated. Follow-up after reconstructive surgery ranged between 3.25 and 6.3 years. Follow-up after implant surgery ranged between 1.5 and 3.8 years.

RESULTS

Overall survival rate was 85.7% in free fibula flaps and 85.6% in dental implants. Eight implants were lost in three patients and all of these failures were in dental implants inserted in free flaps. According to the results on patient basis, the implant survival was not influenced by any variable.

CONCLUSIONS

The maxillofacial reconstruction with free fibula flap and oral rehabilitation with implant-supported prostheses after ablative surgery can be considered as an effective and safe procedure with successful aesthetic and functional outcomes.

Prosthodontic rehabilitation of head and neck cancer patients-Challenges and new developments

Head and neck cancer treatment can severely alter oral function and aesthetics, and reduce quality of life. The role of maxillofacial prosthodontists in multidisciplinary treatment of head and neck cancer patients is essential when it comes to oral rehabilitation and its planning. This role should preferably start on the day of first intake. Maxillofacial prosthodontists should be involved in the care pathway to shape and outline the prosthetic and dental rehabilitation in line with the reconstructive surgical options. With the progress of three‐dimensional technology, the pretreatment insight in overall prognosis and possibilities of surgical and/or prosthetic rehabilitation has tremendously increased. This increased insight has helped to improve quality of cancer care. This expert review addresses the involvement of maxillofacial prosthodontists in treatment planning, highlighting prosthodontic rehabilitation of head and neck cancer patients from start to finish.

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.

Oral health-related quality of life in tumour patients treated with patient-specific dental implants

Dental rehabilitation after surgically acquired bone deficiency related to tumour treatment remains a challenge. The insertion of patient-specific implants geared to the contour of the remaining bone is a feasible method of supporting fixed or removable dentures. As oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) is of great interest in these cases, 12 individuals treated with patient-specific implants for severe bone deficiency were surveyed and their Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP) scores after dental rehabilitation were evaluated. The OHIP-G53 questionnaire was used to measure overall treatment outcomes. The distribution of OHIP sum-scores for participants treated with patient-specific implants was almost homogeneous when compared to those cited in the literature for patients treated with conventional dental implants. OHIP items related to functional impairment and physical pain showed the highest scores (occurring occasionally), and financial loss related to treatment was frequently stated. Moreover, higher scores were detected in almost all OHIP dimensions for participants with patient-specific implant-supported removable dentures. Conversely, those treated with patient-specific dental implants and fixed dentures showed lower psychosocial impact scores and equal or superior OHRQoL. Hence, patient-specific dental implants, especially combined with fixed dentures, can lead to a positive OHRQoL in patients with severe bone deficiencies related to tumour therapy.

Ability to Propose Optimal Prosthetic Rehabilitation can be Improved by Discussion between the Dentist and Radiation Oncologist Regarding Upstream Dosimetry

Objective Improvement of dental rehabilitation for patients who have undergone radiation therapy requires knowledge of the dose in the maxillary and mandible bones.

Materials and Methods Forty-three patients with head and neck cancers underwent evaluation for dental rehabilitation before radiation treatment dosimetry. The delivered dose to the maxilla and mandible was determined. From the dose data in the literature, three levels of risk of implant failure were defined. According to the delivered doses, the authors calculated the percentage of patients who could be fully rehabilitated with an implant, as proposed by the dentist before radiation planning.

Results Before dosimetry calculation, all of the completely edentulous arches and 94 partially edentulous (PESs) sextants could be optimally rehabilitated. After dose calculation, among the 14 arches of 7 patients who were completely edentulous, according to the mean and maximal delivered doses, 11 arches (78.6%) and 7 arches (50%) could receive an optimal prosthesis, respectively. For the three patients, who were PESs but with one arch that was completely edentulous, according to the mean and maximal delivered doses, one arch for each dose condition could receive an optimal prosthesis. Among the 94 PESs sextants, according to the mean and maximal delivered doses, 41 (43.6%) and 24 (25.5%) sextants could receive an optimal prosthesis, respectively.

Conclusion By determining the sites of implantation before dosimetry, the radiation oncologist could shield specified areas, potentially improving the possibilities for dental rehabilitation. The dialogue between the dentist and the radiation oncologist can improve the possibilities for implants and decrease the risk of unsafe implantation.

Outcomes of implant-based oral rehabilitation in head and neck oncology patients-a retrospective evaluation of a large, single regional service cohort

Background

The study reports on implant survival outcomes in head and neck cancer patients who received implant-based oral rehabilitation in a regional service centre.

Methods

A retrospective analysis of implant survival outcomes in patients treated in a regional service from 2012 to 2017 was performed. The primary outcome measure was implant survival. The secondary outcome measure was to assess the effect of covariates associated with implant failure including bone type, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, gender and surgical implant complications. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were applied to compare differences in the survival rates of groups of variables. Cox proportional hazards models were applied to identify covariates associated with implant failure. p value was set at 0.05.

Results

The sample was composed of 167 head and neck cancer patients who had 779 dental implants placed. Implant survival estimates were calculated: 3 years, 95.7% [95%CI 94.3–97.2%] and 5 years, 95.5% [95%CI 93.9–97.0%], with a median follow-up of 38 months. Gender (p = 0.09), radiotherapy (p = 0.16) and chemotherapy (p = 0.17) did not significantly influence implant survival, whereas implant failure was higher in transported (reconstructed) bone sites in comparison with native bone (p < 0.01).

Conclusion

The result of this study suggests that overall implant survival as part of the routine oral rehabilitation is high in this patient cohort; however, implant failure was found to be statistically higher for implant placed into transported bone in comparison to native bone.

A Comparison of Immediate and Delayed Dental Implant Placement in Head and Neck Surgery Patients

PURPOSE

Implant-supported dental prostheses offer numerous benefits for patients after ablative procedures of the head and neck region, including restoration of function, improved self-esteem and body satisfaction, and overall quality of life. Increased experience is emerging with immediate placement of implants at the time of ablative surgery compared with the traditional delayed approach. The authors sought to identify variables affecting survival of osseointegrated dental implants in such patients and to assess the impact of timing of implant insertion (immediate vs delayed) on the time until final prosthesis insertion.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Implant survival was assessed based on different factors: immediate versus delayed implants, benign versus malignant disease, postoperative radiotherapy, smoking status, alcohol status, age, 1- versus 2-stage surgery, hyperbaric oxygen therapy, and implant placement into native bone versus into osseous free flap reconstruction. Time to final prosthesis insertion was compared between immediate and delayed implant placement.

RESULTS

The study included 20 patients who received a total of 102 implants (39 immediate, 63 delayed). There were 7 failed implants (overall survival, 93.14%). There was no statistically relevant difference in implant survival between any of the groups assessed. However, there was a significant decrease in time to final prosthesis insertion for those patients receiving immediate implants compared with those who underwent delayed implant placement (321 days; standard error, 46.5 vs 726 days; standard error, 45 days; P < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Immediate implant placement is an effective approach to the prosthetic rehabilitation of patients undergoing ablative procedures of the jaws, which shortens time to final prosthesis placement without adversely affecting overall implant survival.

Survival of dental implants placed in autogenous bone grafts and bone flaps in head and neck oncology patients: a systematic review

Using implants to retain prostheses as part of the oral rehabilitation of head and neck cancer patients is an increasingly common treatment modality, particularly in transported bone which is used to reconstruct defects following oncological surgical resection. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the survival of dental implants placed into autogenous bone grafts and flaps, in head and neck cancer patients. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and Science Direct databases were searched (1980-August 2017) for studies evaluating intra-oral implant placement into autogenous bone grafts and flaps in H&N cancer patients. Twenty articles were included reporting on 1905 implants placed into autogenous bone in head and neck cancer patients. Implant survival varied from 54 to 100% within the studies with 11 studies reporting implant survival of over 90%. In conclusion, intra-oral implant survival in autogenous bone grafts in head and neck oncology patients is promising, however inconsistencies in data reporting and in outcome definitions precludes formal meta-analysis.

Mandibular reconstruction using customized three-dimensional titanium implant

Mandibular defects lead to severe deformation and functional deficiency. Vascularized osteocutaneous tissue has been widely used to reconstruct the mandible. However, it is technically challenging to shape this type of grafts in such a manner that they resemble the configuration of the mandible. A 48-year-old female patient who underwent anterolateral thigh (ALT) flap coverage after a tongue cancer excision was diagnosed with a tumor recurrence during the follow-up. A wide excision mandibulectomy and mandibular reconstruction with an ALT flap and a titanium implant were performed. The prefabricated titanium implant was fixed to the condyle. Then, an ALT flap was harvested from the ipsilateral thigh and anastomosed. After confirming that the circulation of the flap was intact, the implant was fixed to the parasymphysis. On the radiograph taken after the surgery, the prosthesis was well positioned and overall facial shape was acceptable. There was no postoperative complication during the follow-up period, 1 year and 2 months. The prefabricated implant allows the restoration of facial symmetry without harvesting autologous bone and it is a safe and effective surgical option for mandibular reconstruction.

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.

Implant retention systems for implant-retained overdentures

Implant retained overdentures are being increasingly utilised in both general and specialist practice to rehabilitate patients with missing teeth, particularly those that are edentate. This article aims to inform the reader of a variety of retention systems that are available to retain an implant overdenture and to understand how these systems work, their advantages and disadvantages and to outline some of the clinical and treatment planning considerations involved in selecting the most appropriate retention system for patients.

Postoperative irradiation after implant placement: A pilot study for prosthetic reconstruction

PURPOSE

On maxillofacial tumor patients, oral implant placement prior to postoperative radiotherapy can shorten the period of prosthetic reconstruction. There is still lack of research on effects of post-implant radiotherapy such as healing process or loading time, which is important for prosthodontic treatment planning. Therefore, this study evaluated the effects of post-implant local irradiation on the osseointegration of implants during different healing stages.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Custom-made implants were placed bilaterally on maxillary posterior edentulous area 4 weeks after extraction of the maxillary first molars in Forty-eight Sprague-Dawley rats. Experimental group (exp.) received radiation after implant surgery and the other group (control) didn't. Each group was divided into three sub-groups according to the healing time (2, 4, and 8 week) from implant placement. The exp. group 1, 2 received 15-Gy radiation 1 day after implant placement (immediate irradiation). The exp. group 3 received 15-Gy radiation 4 weeks after implant placement (delayed irradiation).

RESULTS

The bone mineral density (BMD) was significantly lower in the immediate irradiation groups. BMD was similar in the delayed irradiation group and the control group. The irradiated groups exhibited a lower bone-to-implant contact ratio, although the difference was not statistically significant. The irradiated groups also exhibited a significantly lower bone volume and higher empty lacuna count than the control groups. No implant failure due to local irradiation was found in this study.

CONCLUSION

Within the limits of this study, the timing of local irradiation critically influences the bone healing mechanism, which is related to loading time of prostheses.

A systematic review of functional outcome and quality of life following reconstruction of maxillofacial defects using vascularized free fibula flaps and dental rehabilitation reveals poor data quality

BACKGROUND

Reconstruction and oral rehabilitation of segmental maxillofacial defects resulting from ablative surgery is commonly achieved by osteocutaneous vascularized free fibula (VFFF) transplantation combined with implant-supported dental prostheses. We systematically reviewed the literature regarding impact of oral rehabilitation with or without dental implants on functional outcome and quality of life (Qol) following reconstruction of such segmental maxillofacial defects with VFFF.

METHODS

This systematic review was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines. A literature search was conducted using the databases of Cochrane, MEDLINE and EMBASE. Relevant search terms for maxilla or mandible, reconstruction with VFFF, and oral rehabilitation were used. Two reviewers independently assessed the publications using eligibility and research quality criteria (MINORS).

RESULTS

In total, 554 unique publications were found. After scrutinization, 2 prospective studies and 8 retrospective case-series without comparison were left for ultimate analysis. Quality ranged from 44% to 88% of the maximum score. Overall survival rate of the VFFF was 99% and the survival rate of dental implants was 95%. Speech intelligibility and overall aesthetic outcome were 'good' to 'excellent'. No statistically significant changes in QoL were found. Methods to measure functional outcome varied strongly, making pooling impossible.

CONCLUSIONS

Oral rehabilitation with implant-supported dental prostheses after reconstruction of segmental maxillofacial defects with VFFF results in good to excellent speech intelligibility and aesthetics. Results are probably positively biased by the retrospective nature of the studies. In future prospective research, functional outcome measures should be addressed using standardized questionnaires and validated objective tests with adequate follow-up.

Assessment of the Survival of Dental Implants in Irradiated Jaws Following Treatment of Oral Cancer: A Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND

In patients undergoing head and neck surgery for various pathologic conditions, implants are one of the best restorative options and are increasing widely used. Therefore, we evaluated the success of dental implants in the irradiated jaws of patients following treatment of oral cancer oral cancer treated patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data of oral cancer treated patients was collected retrospectively from 2002 to 2008. We took 46 oral cancer treated patients in which implants were placed in irradiated jaws for rehabilitation.

RESULTS

It was found that out of 162 dental implants placed, 52 failed. Furthermore, there was no variation in the implant survival rate in between both the jaws. Radiation dose of <50 Gy units also showed significantly increased amount of implant survival rate.

CONCLUSIONS

Implant survival is multifactorial and depends upon a number of factors like level of radiation exposure in that area, time gap between last radiation doses etc., Further research is required in this field to improve the esthetics and quality of life of cancer treated patients.

Magnet and Semi Precision Attachment in an Implant Retained Partial Denture for the Rehabilitation of an Irradiated Marginal Mandibulectomy Patient: A Case Report

Surgical treatment of malignancies in the oral cavity (mandible, tongue, floor of the mouth, alveolus, buccal sulcus) often results in an unfavourable anatomic condition for prosthodontic rehabilitation. Hence, maxillofacial prosthetic rehabilitation becomes a mightier task when resection is accompanied by radiation therapy. In selected cases, implant therapy comes to rescue. The following report throws light on the case of prosthetic rehabilitation of a patient who underwent right marginal mandibulectomy and right partial glossectomy, with the aid of a single implant, semi precision attachment and magnet supported partial denture.

Dental implants in irradiated versus nonirradiated patients: A meta-analysis

The purpose of the present meta-analysis was to test the null hypothesis of no difference in dental implant failure rates, postoperative infection, and marginal bone loss for patients being rehabilitated by dental implants and being previously irradiated in the head and neck region versus nonirradiated patients against the alternative hypothesis of a difference. The study suggests that irradiation negatively affects the survival of implants, as well as the difference in implant location (maxilla vs mandible), but there is no statistically significant difference in survival when implants are inserted before or after 12 months after radiotherapy. The study failed to support the effectiveness of hyperbaric oxygen therapy in irradiated patients. It was observed that there was a tendency of lower survival rates of implants inserted in the patients submitted to higher irradiation doses. The results should be interpreted with caution because of the presence of uncontrolled confounding factors in the included studies.

Survival of dental implants in patients with oral cancer treated by surgery and radiotherapy: a retrospective study

Background

The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the survival of dental implants placed after ablative surgery, in patients affected by oral cancer treated with or without radiotherapy.

Methods

We collected data for 34 subjects (22 females, 12 males; mean age: 51 ± 19) with malignant oral tumors who had been treated with ablative surgery and received dental implant rehabilitation between 2007 and 2012. Postoperative radiation therapy (less than 50 Gy) was delivered before implant placement in 12 patients. A total of 144 titanium implants were placed, at a minimum interval of 12 months, in irradiated and non-irradiated residual bone.

Results

Implant loss was dependent on the position and location of the implants (P = 0.05–0.1). Moreover, implant survival was dependent on whether the patient had received radiotherapy. This result was highly statistically significant (P < 0.01). Whether the implant was loaded is another highly significant (P < 0.01) factor determining survival. We observed significantly better outcomes when the implant was not loaded until at least 6 months after placement.

Conclusions

Although the retrospective design of this study could be affected by selection and information biases, we conclude that a delayed loading protocol will give the best chance of implant osseointegration, stability and, ultimately, effective dental rehabilitation.

Clinical evaluation of implants in patients with maxillofacial defects

AIM: To show the efficacy of reconstruction and rehabilitation of large acquired maxillofacial defects due to tumor resections and firearm injuries.

METHODS: The study group comprised of 16 patients (10 men and 6 women) who were operated on because of their maxillofacial defects under local and general anesthesia between June 2007 and June 2011. Prosthetic treatment with the aid of dental implants was performed for all of the patients. Eight patients received an implant supported fixed prosthesis; six patients received implant supported overdentures and two patients received both. Patients were followed up postoperatively for 1 to 4 years. Implant success and survival rates were recorded. Panoramic radiographs were taken preoperatively, immediately after surgery, immediately after loading and at every recall session. Peri-implant and prosthetic complications were recorded. Subjects were asked to grade their oral health satisfaction after treatment according to 100 mm visual analog scale (VAS) and the oral health related quality of life of the patients was measured with the short-form Oral Health Impact Profile.

RESULTS: Five implants (3 in the mandible, 2 in the maxilla) in five patients were lost, while the other 53 survived, which brings an overall survival rate of 91.37% on the implant basis, but 68.75% on patient basis. All the failed implants were lost before abutment connection and were therefore regarded as early failures. For all failed implants, new implants were placed after a 2 mo period and the planning was maintained. The mean marginal bone loss (MBL) was 1.4 mm on the mesial side and 1.6 mm on the distal side of the implants. Five of the implants showed MBL > 2 mm (mean MBL = 2.3 mm) but less than 1/2 of the implant bodies and therefore were regarded as not successful but surviving implants. The VAS General Comfort mean score was 85.07, the VAS Speech mean score was 75.25 and the VAS Esthetics mean score was 82.74. No patient reported low scores (score lower than 50) of satisfaction in any of the evaluated factors. The mean of OHIP-14 scores was 5.5.

CONCLUSION: Although further follow up and larger case numbers will give more information about the success of dental implants as a treatment modality in maxillofacial defects patients, the actual results are encouraging and can be recommended for similar cases.

Treatment of hemi-mandibulectomy defect with implant-supported telescopic removable prosthesis. A clinical report

Excision of head and neck tumors (benign or malignant) often leads to large segmental resections of the mandible. The following clinical report describes the oral rehabilitation of a 60-year-old Caucasian man after partial mandibulectomy due to primary oral leiomyosarcoma. Treatment consisted of a free fibula flap and an implant-supported telescopic removable prosthesis.

The prosthodontic pathway of the oral cancer patient

Oral cancer patients undergo life-altering curative treatment that consists of surgery or a combination of surgery and radiotherapy. This can severely alter the functional anatomy of the oral cavity and create a challenging environment for successful oral rehabilitation. A multidisciplinary team approach is required to rehabilitate these patients successfully. It is essential to have assessment by an oral rehabilitation specialist before treatment, especially where primary rehabilitation interventions are being considered. Following cancer treatment, patients may suffer from a range of difficulties, from dento-facial appearance, to chewing, speech and swallowing. This dysfunction often leads to psychosocial problems, such as reduced self esteem, social contact and quality of life. Conventional prosthodontics has a role to play in the management of these patients but osseointegrated implants (OII), can be required to overcome the anatomical and physiological barriers. OII can be used in an environment where there is poor soft tissue function or little bone support, and where there is a dry mouth.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

This paper introduces readers to the prosthodontic pathway taken by some oral cancer patients. It provides an overview of current oral rehabilitation techniques that supplement the supportive dental care provided by general dental practitioners and their team after cancer treatment.

Assessment of quality of life after implant-retained prosthetically reconstructed maxillae and mandibles postcancer treatments

PURPOSE

The aim of this prospective study was to assess treatment outcome and impact on quality of life with implant-retained prosthesis in reconstructed jaws in head and neck cancer patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twelve patients were rehabilitated with implant-retained dental prosthesis following free fibular graft after segmental resection. These subjects were evaluated by standardized questionnaires European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 (version 3) and clinical assessment for quality of life. Objective assessment of speech parameters was done with Dr. Speech Software (Tiger DRS Inc., Seattle, WA). The questionnaire consisting of information on evaluation of deglutition, salivation, status of the mandible and teeth in relation to predisease level was used for subjective judgment of speech.

RESULTS

Consumption of solid, semisolid, and overcooked food was considerably better with the prosthesis. Drinking ability was not affected. Patients' voice resonance was improved, and they could sustain phonation for longer duration without difficulty. They were able to speak loudly, and their intonation pattern was also slightly better. Failure of the implants to osseointegrate at the end of 18 months was observed in 37% of the patients. This was attributed to radiation before implant insertions and periimplantitis. Despite the observed improvement in some patients, the statistical analysis of speech, swallowing parameters, and quality of life were not significant because of the paucity of numbers in this pilot study. There was no improvement in the symptoms scale scores.

CONCLUSION

Reconstruction and rehabilitation of the jaws affected by tumor restores the patient anatomically, esthetically, and functionally to optimum levels. However, a study with larger numbers of patients is necessary to ascertain the benefits of this treatment modality.

Prosthetic rehabilitation, implant survival and quality of life 2 to 5 years after resection of oral tumors

BACKGROUND

After oral tumor resection, structural and functional rehabilitation by means of dental prostheses is complex, and positive treatment outcome is not always predictable.

PURPOSE

The objective of the study was to report on oral rehabilitation and quality of life 2-5 years after resection of malignant oral tumors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data of 46 patients (57 ± 7 years) who underwent oral tumor surgery were available. More than 50% of tumors were classified T3 or T4. Open oro-nasal defects resulted in 12 patients and full mandibulary block resections in 23 patients. Comprehensive planning, implant placement, and prosthetic rehabilitation followed an interdisciplinary protocol. Analysis comprised tumor location, type of prostheses, implant survival, and quality of life.

RESULTS

Because of advanced tumor status, resections resulted in marked alteration of the oral anatomy requiring complex treatment procedures. Prosthetic rehabilitation comprised fixed and removable prostheses, with 104 implants placed in 28 patients (60%). Early implant loss was high (13%) and cumulative survival rate of loaded implants was <90% after 5 years. Prosthetic plans had to be modified because of side effects of tumor therapy, complications with implants and tumor recurrence. The majority of patients rated quality of life favorable, but some experienced impaired swallowing, dry mouth, limited mouth opening, appearance, and soreness.

CONCLUSIONS

Some local effects of tumor therapy could not be significantly improved by prosthetic rehabilitation leading to functional and emotional disability. Many patients had passed away or felt too ill to fill the questionnaires. This case series confirms the complex anatomic alterations after tumor resection and the need for individual treatment approaches especially regarding prosthesis design. In spite of disease-related local and general restrictions, most patients gave a positive assessment of quality of life.