Endosteal implants in the irradiated lower jaw

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.

A Contemporary Review of the Role of Facial Prostheses in Complex Facial Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Maxillofacial prostheses provide effective rehabilitation of complex facial defects as alternatives to surgical reconstruction. Although facial prostheses provide aesthetically pleasing reconstructions, multiple barriers exist that prevent their routine clinical use. The accessibility of facial prostheses is limited by the scarce supply of maxillofacial prosthodontists, significant time commitment and number of clinic appointments required of patients during prosthesis fabrication, short lifespan of prostheses, and limited outcomes data.

METHODS

A literature review was completed using PubMed and Embase databases, with search phrases including face and maxillofacial prostheses. Patient cases are included to illustrate the use of facial prostheses to reconstruct complex facial defects.

RESULTS

The clinical use of facial prostheses requires a multidisciplinary team including a reconstructive surgeon, a maxillofacial prosthodontist, and an anaplastologist, if available, to provide patients with aesthetically appropriate facial prostheses. Developing technology including computer-aided design and three-dimensional printing may improve the availability of facial prostheses by eliminating multiple steps during prosthesis fabrication, ultimately decreasing the time required to fabricate a prosthesis. In addition, enhanced materials may improve prosthesis durability. Long-term outcomes data using validated measures is needed to support the continued use of facial prostheses.

CONCLUSIONS

Facial prostheses can be used to reconstruct complex facial defects, and bone-anchored prostheses are associated with high patient satisfaction. Multiple barriers prevent prostheses from being used for facial reconstruction. New technologies to assist the design and fabrication of prostheses, and cost reduction measures, may allow their use in the appropriately selected patient.

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.

Success of dental implants in patients with large bone defect and analysis of risk factors for implant failure: a non-randomized retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to retrospectively investigate the success and survival rates of dental implants used for dentomaxillary prostheses at our hospital and the risk factors associated with large bone defects.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 138 external joint system implants used for dentomaxillary prostheses in 40 patients with large bone defects were included in this study. The alveolar bone at the site of implant insertion was evaluated using panoramic radiography and computed tomography. Various risk factors (demographic characteristics, dental status, and operative factors such as the employment of alveolar bone augmentation, the site, the length, and diameter of implants) for implant failure and complete implant loss were investigated using univariate and multivariate analyses. The associations between the variables and the success and survival rates of dental implants were analyzed using the multivariate Cox proportional hazard models.

RESULTS

The 10-year overall success and survival rates were 81.3% and 88.4% in this study. Multivariable analysis showed that the male sex (HR 6.22), shorter implants (≤ 8.5 mm) (HR 5.21), and bone augmentation (HR 2.58) were independent predictors of success rate. Bone augmentation (HR 5.14) and narrow implants (≤ 3.3 mm) (HR 3.86) were independent predictors of the survival rate.

CONCLUSION

Male sex, shorter or narrow implants, and bone augmentation were independent risk factors for dental implants used in dentomaxillary prostheses in patients with large bone defects.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Clinicians should consider these risk factors and pay close attention to the management of these patients.

Survival of dental implants and occurrence of osteoradionecrosis in irradiated head and neck cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review assesses dental implant survival, calculates the incidence rate of osteoradionecrosis, and evaluates risk factors in irradiated head and neck cancer patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Various databases (e.g., Medline/Embase using Ovid) and gray literature platforms were searched using a combination of keywords and subject headings. When appropriate, meta-analysis was carried out using a random effects model. Otherwise, pooled analysis was applied.

RESULTS

A total of 425 of the 660 included patients received radiotherapy. In total, 2602 dental implants were placed, and 1637 were placed in irradiated patients. Implant survival after an average follow-up of 37.7 months was 97% (5% confidence interval, CI 95.2%, 95% CI 98.3%) in nonirradiated patients and 91.9% (5% CI 87.7%, 95% CI: 95.3%) after an average follow-up of 39.8 months in irradiated patients. Osteoradionecrosis occurred in 11 cases, leading to an incidence of 3% (5% CI 1.6%, 95% CI 4.9%). The main factors impacting implant survival were radiation and grafting status, while factors influencing osteoradionecrosis could not be determined using meta-analysis.

CONCLUSION

Our data show that implant survival in irradiated patients is lower than in nonirradiated patients, and osteoradionecrosis is-while rare-a serious complication that any OMF surgeon should be prepared for. The key to success could be a standardized patient selection and therapy to improve the standard of care, reduce risks and shorten treatment time.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Our analysis provides further evidence that implant placement is a feasible treatment option in irradiated head and neck cancer patients with diminished oral function and good long-term cancer prognosis.

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.

Peri implant bone resorption on microvascular free fibula flap: a radiographic retrospective study

Introduction: As the vascularization of the microvascular free fibula flap enables to maintain an osteogenic potential, osseointegrated implants have a 86% to 99% success rate. Thus, only few studies consider peri-implant bone resorption (PIBR). The aim of the study was to radiologically evaluate PIBR on fibula flaps. Materials and methods: Data were retrospectively collected. Gender, age, reason for interruptive mandibulectomy, previous radiotherapy, number of implants placed on the reconstruction, length and number of segments of the reconstruction, height of resorption were collected for each patient. Measurements were made on panoramic radiograph. Results: 85 clinical reports were reviewed for 39 retained. Peri-implant bone resorption was observed in 21 (53.9%) patients. The average age of the resorption group was 55.4 . All of the 5 patients with 4 or 5 implants on their reconstruction did not developed PIBR. 59.1% of patients with 1 segment reconstruction developed PIBR, 54.6% with 2 segments and 33.3% with 3 segments. Discussion: Age and poor oral hygiene appeared to be clearly more related to PIBR. An important number of implant (4 or 5) and a reconstruction with more than 1 segment seemed to decrease PIBR. Further studies are required to confirm these hypotheses.

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.

Long-term implant failure in patients treated for oral cancer by external radiotherapy: a retrospective monocentric study

Introduction: The placement of dental implants in irradiated bone has allowed functional rehabilitation for many oral cancer patients. Nonetheless, there is only few data about implant failure in irradiated tissues and their consequences. This retrospective study aims to highlight the rate and circumstances of implant failure. Material and method: Patients treated with external radiotherapy for oral carcinoma and who received dental implants were included. Patients reconstructed with free bone flaps were excluded. Results: Eighteen patients were included. Forty implants were placed between 2004 and 2007, 8 failed, of whom one osteoradionecrosis was observed. Time interval between radiotherapy and implantation was 44.6 (6–182) months. Mean dose was 51.8 (50–66) Gy. Discussion: In the series, the implant failure rate is 20%, which corroborates the literature's data. Failures occur more often for doses over 50 Gy. The placement of dental implant in irradiated bone leads to soft tissue complications but also increases the risk of osteoradionecrosis. The recent reimbursement of dental implants in oral cancer patients by the National Social Health system will probably increase the indications. Multidisciplinary staffs should be aware of benefit/risk ratio for each patient.

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.

Time interval after radiotherapy and dental implant failure: systematic review of observational studies and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Typically, dental implants are placed in irradiated bone after a delay that exceeds 6 months, but it is not known whether longer delays are beneficial.

PURPOSE

The purpose of the study is to review the literature comparing the failure rate of dental implants placed in irradiated bone between 6 and 12 months and after 12 months from the cessation of radiotherapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Four electronic databases were searched for articles published until February 2013 without language restriction: Lilacs, Medline, Scopus, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Two reviewers independently assessed the eligibility criteria and extracted data. Fixed effect meta-analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Overall, 3,749 observational studies were identified. After the screening of titles and abstracts, 236 publications were selected, and 10 were included in the final analysis. The pooled relative risk (RR) of failure was RRpooled  = 1.34 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.01-1.79), higher in individuals who had dental implants installed between 6 and 12 months after receiving radiotherapy. I(2) indicated nearly 21% heterogeneity (p = .25). Egger's test indicated no evidence of publication bias (p = .62); however, the removal of one study significantly affected the overall RR (RRpooled  = 1.08, 95% CI: 0.77-1.52).

CONCLUSIONS

Placing implants in bone within a period shorter than 12 months after radiotherapy may result in a higher risk of failure; however, additional evidence from clinical trials is needed to verify this risk.

Clinical evaluation of implants in radiated fibula flaps

PURPOSE

The success of osseointegrated implants in the radiated fibula flap used for mandibular reconstruction is variable, and there are few long-term data available in the literature. The purpose of this study is to evaluate implant success in radiated fibula flaps and the native mandible after ablative tumor surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The medical records of 44 patients who underwent resection and reconstruction of the mandible from 1994 to 2006 were reviewed retrospectively. A total of 206 implants were placed; 144 were placed in a fibula flap, and 92 were placed in the native mandible. Before implant placement, 22 patients (50%) received adjuvant tumoricidal doses of radiation therapy (>6,000 cGy). All patients who received radiation received a standard regimen of 20 preoperative and 10 postoperative hyperbaric oxygen treatments. The follow-up period ranged from 4 to 108 months (mean, 41.1 months). Comparisons were made between groups regarding long-term implant success based on several variables.

RESULTS

Implants were considered to be successful if there was no radiographic evidence of peri-implant bone loss and if they were clinically osseointegrated. Of 206 implants, 31 failed, with an overall success rate of 85%. The success rate of implants placed in fibula flaps was 82.4%, and the success rate in native mandibles was 88%. Most of the failures in the fibula (90%) occurred within the first 6 months after implant placement, whereas most of the failures in the mandible occurred after 6 months. The cumulative survival rate was 91.9%, and there was no difference in survival between implants placed in the fibula versus the native mandible or depending on whether the patient received radiation therapy.

CONCLUSION

Acceptable long-term implant success rates may be achieved in the radiated mandible with vascularized fibula flap reconstruction.

Hyperbaric oxygen: therapy for patients with maxillofacial implants?

Osseointegration was an innovative treatment in dentistry during the last 3 decades. The success of osseointegration is related to factors such as material biocompatibility, adequate quality of bone tissue that allows implantation, surgical technique, and macrostructure and microstructure of implant. The osseointegrated implants are successfully applied in dental clinic including oral and facial rehabilitations mainly for patients submitted to mutilating surgeries. However, patients submitted to radiation therapy present risks to treatment with implants owing to adverse effects on bone tissue. Nowadays, the literature suggests different therapies to improve the success of osseointegration such as hyperbaric oxygen therapy that aims to prepare bone and adjacent tissues to receive the implant. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to present a literature review concerning indications, contraindications, successes, and difficulties with hyperbaric oxygen therapy associated to maxillofacial implants.

Isolation and implantation of bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells with fibrin micro beads to repair a critical-size bone defect in mice

Fibrin microbeads (FMBs) made using thermal treatment of fibrin drops in oil can efficiently isolate mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) from bone marrow (BM) and other similar sources and culture them continuously in suspension culture. The pure mesenchymal profile of MSCs isolated using FMBs and their differentiation potency to different mesenchymal lineages were previously described in detail. In the current study, MSCs were isolated from the BM of (GFP+) C57/bl mice using FMBs. Addition of pro-osteogenic medium with 10 mM of ss-glycerolphosphate, 50 microg/mL of ascorbic acid, and 10(-8) M of dexamethasone for 1 month resulted in ossified bone-like solid cellular structures, as seen using fluorescence and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Such spontaneously formed structures were implanted in full-depth approximately 5-mm-diameter drilled defects in the skulls of wild-type c57/bl mice. Two months later, the excised upper parts of the skulls with the defects were viewed using fluorescence microscopy for green fluorescence protein of the cells in the defect and using SEM. They were also scanned using micro-computed tomography to visualize the formation of new hard tissue. Then the samples were processed and sectioned for hematoxylin and eosin staining and immunohistochemistry. Implanted FMBs loaded with (GFP+) MSCs formed partially mature, dense bone-like tissue using a residual moderate inflammatory process containing remnants of FMBs and neo-angiogenesis. The filled defect with bone-like tissue had a Ca/P ratio similar to that of native bone. Limited merging of the implant with the skull indicated that the induced bone regeneration derived from the MSCs that were delivered with the implant. No repair was seen in the control animals without implants or where the defect was filled with FMBs only. Repair scoring (on a 0-5 scale) was found to be 3.38+/-0.35 in the experimental arm, relative to 0 in the controls (p < 0.001).

Long-term results of endosteal implants following radical oral cancer surgery with and without adjuvant radiation therapy

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to analyze the long-term survival of implants and implant-retained prostheses in patients after ablative surgery of oral cancer with or without adjunctive radiation therapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between 1997 and 2008, 66 patients who had undergone ablative tumor surgery in the oral cavity were treated with dental implants (n = 262). Thirty-four patients received radiation therapy in daily fractions of 2 Gy administered on 18 to 30 days. Implants were inserted in the maxilla (49; 18.7%) or mandible (213; 81.3%), in non-irradiated residual (65; 24.8%) or grafted bone (44; 16.8%) and in irradiated residual (15.6%) or grafted bone (39; 14.9%). Seventeen fixed protheses and 53 removable dentures (34 bar attachments, 9 telescopic and 10 ball retained dentures) were inserted.

RESULTS

Mean follow-up after implant insertion was 47.99 (±34.31) months (range 12-140 months). The overall 1-, 5-, and 10-year survival rates of all implants were 96.6%, 96.6%, and 86.9%, respectively. Fourteen implants were lost in nine patients (5.3% of all implants); eight implants were primary losses, and five secondary losses because of an operation of tumor recurrence. There was no significantly lower implant survival for implants inserted into irradiated bone (p = .302), bone and/or soft-tissue grafts (p = .436), and maxilla or mandible (p = .563). All prosthetic restorations in patients without tumor recurrence could be maintained during the observation period.

CONCLUSIONS

Implant survival is not significantly influenced by radiation therapy, grafts (bone and/or soft tissue), or location (maxilla or mandible). However, implants placed in irradiated bone exhibit a higher failure rate during the healing period than those placed in non-irradiated bone. No superstructure was particularly favorable. Osseointegrated implants can be used successfully in patients with prior history of ablative surgery with and without additional radiation therapy.

Computerized implantology for the irradiated patient

Reconstruction of the irradiated head and neck cancer patient continues to be a challenge. Conventional prosthodontics can be very unpredictable and difficult in these patients. Implant-supported fixed prostheses are good alternatives. It is well-accepted that maxillofacial surgery for the irradiated head and neck cancer patients should be performed in an atraumatic fashion to minimize postoperative complications. We propose the use of computer generated surgical guides and flapless surgery for the placement of dental implants in the irradiated head and neck cancer patient. With these techniques, implants can be placed in an atraumatic, predictable, and accurate manner, according to a prosthetically driven treatment plan.

Plasmacytoma of the mandible associated with a dental implant failure: a clinical report

The case report of a patient is presented who had been suffering from a plasmacytoma of the spine several years back, and who had developed a new plasmacytoma of the mandible, 3 years subsequent to the insertion of a dental implant. This second solitary lesion occurred 15 years after the first one, and without signs of conversion to multiple myeloma. Research in animal models has shown multinucleated giant cells, belonging to the monocyte-macrophage lineage, persisting between the titanium surface and the lymphohemopoietic compartment, at least 1.5 years after implant insertion. Factors that increase the proliferative activity of precursor B cells, for example a protracted macrophage activation, are likely to increase the risk of B cell oncogenesis. A possible role of the titanium surface in an increase of precursor B cell proliferative activity, thus facilitating a new localization, was evaluated.

Comparison of early telescope loading of non-submerged ITI implants in irradiated and non-irradiated oral cancer patients

OBJECTIVE

To compare early dental implant loading in irradiated and non-irradiated oral cancer patients in order to accelerate masticatory function improvement and quality of life.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

One hundred and fourteen non-submerged interforaminal ITI implants were early loaded in 30 patients after 3 weeks in situ (telescoped overdenture). Nineteen patients received 72 implants (63%) after local irradiation; 11 non-irradiated patients received 42 implants (37%) with a 24-month follow-up.

RESULTS

At 24 month follow-up, one early failure had occurred in an irradiated patient (=99% functioning implants in situ). Peri-implant bleeding and plaque index were similarly high in both groups (40 to 68% average). The Results of other measured parameters were as follows (values for mean; irradiated; non-irradiated patients with respective standard deviations; significance of comparison): bone loss (0.9+/-0.9; 1.4+/-0.9; 0.4+/-0.5 mM; P<0.01); Periotest score (-2.7+/-2.7; -2.4+/-2.2; -3.1+/-3.3; P<0.2); gingival recession (0.6+/-0.7 mM; 0.8+/-0.9 mM; 0.4+/-0.5 mM, P<0.02); and peri-implant probing depths (3+/-1.2; 2.6+/-0.6; 3.4+/-1.7 mM; P<0.002).

CONCLUSION

The results suggest reliable non-submerged implantation and early loading. However, bone loss in irradiated mandibles, combined with higher average Periotest values and gingival recession in an oral environment of altered saliva quantity, quality, microflora and local scarring, requires extended follow-up.

Rehabilitation of oral function in head and neck cancer patients after radiotherapy with implant-retained dentures: effects of hyperbaric oxygen therapy

Surgical treatment of malignancies in the oral cavity and subsequent radiotherapy often result in an anatomic and physiological oral condition unfavorable for prosthodontic rehabilitation. The objective of this prospective study was to assess the effect of hyperbaric oxygen therapy on treatment outcome (condition of peri-implant tissues, implant survival, oral functioning and quality of life) of prosthodontic rehabilitation with implant-retained lower dentures in radiated head and neck cancer patients 6 weeks and 1 year after placing the new dentures. The treatment outcome was assessed in a group of 26 head neck cancer patients who were subjected to radiotherapy after tumour surgery. Standardized questionnaires were completed and clinical and radiographic assessments were performed. After randomization, endosseous Brånemark implants were placed in the anterior part of the mandible either under antibiotic prophylaxis (13 patients) or under antibiotic prophylaxis combined with pre and postsurgery hyperbaric oxygen (HBO) treatment (13 patients). In the HBO and non-HBO group eight implants (implant survival 85.2%) and three implants (implant survival 93.9%) were lost, respectively. Peri-implant tissues had a healthy appearance in both groups. Osteoradionecrosis developed in one patient in the HBO group. All patients functioned well with their implant-retained lower denture. The quality of life related to oral functioning and denture satisfaction were improved to a comparable extent in the HBO and non-HBO group. Implant-retained lower dentures can improve the quality of life related to oral functioning and denture satisfaction in head and neck cancer patients. Adjuvant hyperbaric oxygen therapy could not be shown to enhance implant survival in radiated mandibular jaw bone.

Implant survival in mandibles of irradiated oral cancer patients

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to analyze long-term implant survival in the mandible after radiotherapy and radical surgery in oral cancer patients.

STUDY DESIGN

Between 1990 and 2003, 71 patients (15 females, 56 males; average age 57.8 years, range 16-84.1 years) were treated with dental implants after radiochemotherapy and ablative surgery of oral cancer. Radiation therapy was delivered in daily fractions of 2 Gy given on 25 days (total dose of 50 Gy). Oral defects were reconstructed microsurgically with jejunal, iliac crest or radial forearm grafts. Thereafter 316 dental implants were placed in the non-irradiated residual bone (84; 27%), irradiated residual bone (154; 49%) or grafted bone (78; 25%) at various intervals (mean interval 1.41 (+/- 1.01) years, range 0.34-6.35 years).

RESULTS

The mean follow-up time after implant insertion was 5.42 (+/- 3.21) years (range 0.3-13.61 years). The overall 2-, 3-, 5-, and 8-year survival rates of all implants were 95%, 94%, 91% and 75%. Forty-four implants were lost in 21 patients during the observation period. Irradiation of the mandibular bone showed significantly (P = 0.0028) lower implant survival compared with non-irradiated mandibular bone. The 8-year survival rate in the non-irradiated residual bone (two loss), irradiated residual bone (29 loss) or grafted bone (13 loss) were 95%, 72% and 54%, respectively. Time of implantation after irradiation showed no statistically significant influence. Implant brand, length or diameter or the incidence of resective surgery on the mandible and gender of patients had no statistically significant influence on implant survival.

CONCLUSION

Radiation therapy with 50 Gy was significantly related to shorter implant survival in mandibular bone. Survival was lowest in grafted bone. Time of implant placement had no statistically significant influence on survival under the conditions of this study. Although implant survival is lower in irradiated mandibles, implants significantly facilitate prosthodontic treatment and enhance outcome of oral rehabilitation in cancer patients.

Oral rehabilitation after treatment for head and neck malignancy

BACKGROUND

Advances in the management of oral malignancy have resulted in significant improvements in survival and functional outcome. Ablation of oral tissues and radiotherapy render many patients unable to wear conventional prostheses, and these patients are, thus, candidates for oral rehabilitation with osseointegrated implants. We aim to present outcomes and complications of such treatment over a 14-year period in a single unit.

METHODS

Data were collected for 81 consecutive patients, most of whom had received microvascular free flap reconstruction after surgical ablation of oral squamous cell carcinoma. Three hundred eighty-six implants were placed after a delay of 12 months after surgery. Sixty-five percent of implants were placed in the anterior mandible. Radiotherapy was used in 47% of the patients, and hyperbaric oxygen treatment was routinely used in irradiated subjects during the latter half of the series. Retrospective analysis of implants and prostheses was made by use of case notes, radiographs, and a computerized database.

RESULTS

Data are presented for 364 of the 386 implants in 77 of the 81 patients after a median follow-up of 4 years. Two hundred sixty-five (73%) of the implants were in function supporting prostheses, 56 (15%) had been lost, and 43 (12%) were present but not loaded (ie, "sleepers"). Implant loss seemed patient specific and was also correlated with host bone type. Thirteen percent of patients in whom implants were placed in the mandible lost at least one implant, and the equivalent values for the maxilla was 40%. Thirty-six percent of patients in whom implants were placed in bone graft or flap lost at least one implant. The effects of implant manufacture, dimensions, radiotherapy, and hyperbaric oxygen did not reach statistical significance in this series. Cases of a second primary malignancy were noteworthy; however, the impact of recurrence was minimized by the delay between resection and rehabilitation. Of the 42 fixed and 29 removable prostheses fitted, 12 (17%) failed.

CONCLUSIONS

Implants placed in mandible were reliable, but failure rates in vascularized bone graft and maxilla were higher. Radiotherapy did not seem to prejudice implant survival, and hyperbaric oxygen had no demonstrable benefit in this series. Despite some persistent soft tissue problems and implant loss, most patients reached a successful prosthetic and functional outcome.

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

Surgical treatment of malignancies in the oral cavity (tongue, floor of the mouth, alveolus, buccal sulcus, oropharynx) often results in an unfavourable anatomic situation for prosthodontic rehabilitation. The outcome is a severe disturbance of oral functioning despite the improved surgical techniques for reconstruction that are currently available. Radiotherapy, which often is applied postsurgically, worsens oral functioning in many cases. Main problems that may hamper proper prosthodontic rehabilitation of these patients include a severe reduction of the neutral zone, an impaired function of the tongue, and a very poor load-bearing capacity of the remaining soft tissues and mandibular bone. Many of these problems can, at least in part, be diminished by the use of endosseous oral implants. These implants can contribute to the stabilisation of the prostheses and intercept the main part of the occlusal loading. Surgical interventions after radiotherapy are preferably avoided because of compromised healing, which may lead to development of radionecrosis of soft tissues and bone as well as to increased implant loss. If surgical treatment after radiotherapy is indicated, measures to prevent implant loss and development of radionecrosis have to be considered e.g. antibiotic prophylaxis and/or pre-treatment with hyperbaric oxygen (HBO). To avoid this problem, implant insertion during ablative surgery has to be taken into consideration if postoperative radiotherapy is scheduled or possibly will be applied. This approach is in need of a thorough pre-surgical examination and multidisciplinary consultation for a well-established treatment planning. The primary curative intent of the oncological treatment and the prognosis for later prosthodontic rehabilitation have to be taken into account too.

Hyperbaric oxygen therapy in the treatment of radio-induced lesions in normal tissues: a literature review

Late complications are one of the major factors limiting radiotherapy treatment, and their treatment is not codified. Hyperbaric oxygen (HBO) has been used in combination with radiotherapy for over half a century, either to maximise its effectiveness or in an attempt to treat late complications. In this latter case, retrospective trials and case reports are prevailing in literature. This prompted European Society for Therapeutic Radiotherapy and Oncology and European Committee for Hyperbaric Medicine to organise a consensus conference in October 2001, dealing with the HBO indications on radiotherapy for the treatment and prevention of late complications. This updated literature review is part of the documents the jury based its opinion on. A systematic search was done on literature from 1960 to 2004, by only taking into account the articles that appeared in peer review journals. Hyperbaric oxygen treatment involving complications to the head and neck, pelvis and nervous system, and the prevention of complications after surgery in irradiated tissues have been studied. Despite the small number of controlled trials, it may be indicated for the treatment of mandibular osteoradionecrosis in combination with surgery, haemorrhagic cystitis resistant to conventional treatments and the prevention of osteoradionecrosis after dental extraction, whose level of evidence seems to be the most significant though randomised trials are still necessary. The other treatment methods are also outlined for each location.

Dental implants in reconstructed jaws: implant longevity and peri-implant tissue outcomes

PURPOSE

The study aimed to evaluate the clinical status and survival of dental implants inserted in reconstructed jaws, with particular reference to the peri-implant tissues.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a clinical follow-up study based on 29 rehabilitated patients after oral tumor surgery, who received autogenous bone grafts from the ilium and endosseous implants (14 maxillary and 15 mandibular cases; 140 implants) for functional jaw reconstruction between 1988 and 1999. Clinical records of the patients were reviewed retrospectively. Clinical parameters of plaque index, probing pocket depth, and bleeding on probing were assessed around the implants and control teeth at 4 locations (mesiobuccal, distobuccal, mesiolingual, and distolingual). Implant mobility was assessed clinically and objectively using a Periotest (Gulden; Siemens, Bensheim, Germany) equipment for those implants supporting removable prostheses. Radiographically, the proportion of implant length remained osseointegrated was measured.

RESULTS

With a mean follow-up time of 50 months, 90.7% of the 140 implants placed were functional in supporting dental prostheses; 4.3% of implants failed in osseointegration and the remaining 5.0% implants were osseointegrated but nonfunctional. A total of 493 sites of 127 functional implants and 392 sites of 98 control teeth were assessed. No significant difference was found between the implants and control teeth parameters, except on the probing pocket depth. The mean peri-implant probing depth was 3.5 mm, and 52.7% of the measured sites were 3 mm or less. More than one third of the implants (35.9%) presented with increased probing depth (> or =4 mm), and this was significantly higher than in the control teeth (P <.001, chi(2) test). Bleeding on probing was found in 19.3% of the measured peri-implant sites, corresponding to 42.2% of the dental implants. Of the implants, 28.9% were completely free from plaque and 9.4% show visible plaque accumulation. Mobility assessment was feasible on 32 implants and no mobility was detected. Radiographically, the mean implant length remained in bone was 81.1%, with 82.6% in the maxilla and 79.4% in the mandible. Implant survival rate calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method was 86.9% for 5 years. Based on the defined criteria, the success rate of implants placed in reconstructed jaws in this study was 90.7%.

CONCLUSION

Endosseous implants can be successfully placed in reconstructed jaws for oral rehabilitation with maintenance of reasonable health status of the peri-implant tissues in the long-term.

Clinical complications with implants and implant prostheses

The purpose of this article is to identify the types of complications that have been reported in conjunction with endosseous root form implants and associated implant prostheses. A Medline and an extensive hand search were performed on English-language publications beginning in 1981. The searches focused on publications that contained clinical data regarding success/failure/complications. The complications were divided into the following 6 categories: surgical, implant loss, bone loss, peri-implant soft tissue, mechanical, and esthetic/phonetic. The raw data were combined from multiple studies and means calculated to identify trends noted in the incidences of complications. The most common implant complications (those with a greater than a 15% incidence) were loosening of the overdenture retentive mechanism (33%), implant loss in irradiated maxillae (25%), hemorrhage-related complications (24%), resin veneer fracture with fixed partial dentures (22%), implant loss with maxillary overdentures (21%), overdentures needing to be relined (19%), implant loss in type IV bone (16%), and overdenture clip/attachment fracture (16%). It was not possible to calculate an overall complications incidence for implant prostheses because there were not multiple clinical studies that simultaneously evaluated all or most of the categories of complications. Although the implant data had to be obtained from different studies, they do indicate a trend toward a greater incidence of complications with implant prostheses than single crowns, fixed partial dentures, all-ceramic crowns, resin-bonded prostheses, and posts and cores.

Comparison of maxillary implant-supported prosthesis in irradiated and non-irradiated patients

In order to investigate the influence of radiation therapy after the treatment of maxillary implant-supported prostheses, 27 patients received a total of 131 implants in maxilla after oral cancer treatment and/or reconstructive surgery. Among them, 25 received maxillary implant-supported prostheses. The cumulative survival rates of implants and prostheses were evaluated by the product-limit-estimates method according to Kaplan-Meier. The cumulative survival rate of implants and prostheses in irradiated patients was compared with that in non-irradiated patients by statistical Log-rank test. The results showed that 112 implants were observed after implant loading. The implants cumulative survival rate was approximately 65% for overall patients. The cumulative prosthesis successful rate was approximately 88% for all 25 patients. Log-rank test analysis revealed that there was a significant difference in cumulative implants survival rates between non-irradiated and irradiated maxillary bone (P < 0.01). It was concluded that the implants and prostheses in irradiated patients have significantly lower survival rates than in non-irradiated patients.

Treatment of mandibular osteoradionecrosis by cancellous bone grafting

PURPOSE

This study was undertaken to evaluate a new method in the treatment of mandibular osteoradionecrosis.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Eight patients, seven male and one female, with a mean age of 64 years (range, 43 to 67 years), suffering from osteoradionecrosis of the mandible, two bilaterally and six unilaterally, were treated. Five initially had hyperbaric oxygen (HBO) followed by sequestrectomy, and three had sequestrectomy alone. Because healing failed to occur, all patients were treated by removal of the necrotic bone in the affected part of the mandible and filling the defect with compressed particulated cancellous bone and marrow from the tibia. The patients were observed for an average period of 39 months (range, 20 to 93 months).

RESULTS

Primary healing was achieved in two patients with unilateral osteoradionecrosis and HBO treatment. In another patient treated with HBO primary healing occurred on one side while the other healed secondarily. In the remaining five patients, complete secondary healing took place, but it was complicated in three patients by fistulas, two of which were associated with fractures of the mandibular body. The fistulas were excised, and complete healing of the soft tissues occurred, but the fractures resulted in pseudarthrosis.

CONCLUSIONS

The technique presented in this study can be useful in the treatment of osteoradionecrosis as an alternative to continuity resection and reconstruction with free osteocutaneous flaps, but, whenever possible, it should be proceeded by HBO treatment.

Rehabilitation with dental implants of oral cancer patients

The aim of this study was to evaluate the risks and complications of rehabilitation with dental implants after tumour surgery and radiotherapy. After a disease-free survival of 18 months, 29 patients who had undergone oral cancer treatment were rehabilitated with dental implants. The complication rate of implants in irradiated, non-irradiated and grafted bone was analyzed at least 3 years after implant placement. In the healing period, 28.6% of the implants in irradiated bone and 8.4% in non-irradiated bone showed soft tissue complications. Of the implants, 26.7% in the irradiated and 14.7% in the non-irradiated mandibular bone were lost in the first 36 months after placement. Thirty-one point two percent of implants inserted in non-irradiated bone grafts were affected and did not osseointegrate. Of 109 inserted implants, 70 were suitable for prosthetic rehabilitation. There are high complication rates after implant placement in oral cancer patients. Irradiation adversely affects soft tissue healing. Osseointegration is frequently disturbed, especially when implants were placed in non-vascularized bone grafts.

[Early detection of threatened implant loss in tumor patients]

After resection of an oropharyngeal tumor, 157 dental implants were placed in 17 irradiated (44 Gy on average) and 20 non-irradiated patients. Within a control period of 37 months, 15 implants had failed. The reason for implant failure was analyzed, whereby indicative parameters were revealed. Eleven implants in four irradiated and one non-irradiated oral cancer patients showed no primary osseointegration during the healing period because of mandible fracture, overloading or for unknown reasons. Four implants in one irradiated and three non-irradiated oral-cancer patients were lost subsequently on average 39 months after second-stage surgery due to biomechanical overloading or bacterial infection. No osteoradionecrosis development due to implant failure was observed in irradiated patients. In all cases, peri-implant pocket depth, implant stability and peri-implant bone resorption increased before definitive implant failure. Therefore, these findings seem to be useful as indicative parameters in the prediction of implant failure.