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

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

BACKGROUND

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

AIM

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Optimal Treatment Order With Fibula-Free Flap Reconstruction, Oncologic Treatment, and Dental Implants: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Head and neck cancer (HNC) patients benefit from craniofacial reconstruction, but no clear guidance exists for rehabilitation timing. This meta-analysis aims to clarify the impact of oncologic treatment order on implant survival. An algorithm to guide placement sequence is also proposed in this paper. PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were searched for studies on HNC patients with ablative and fibula-free flap (FFF) reconstruction surgeries and radiotherapy (RTX). Primary outcomes included treatment sequence, implant survival rates, and RTX dose. Of 661 studies, 20 studies (617 implants, 199 patients) were included. Pooled survival rates for implants receiving >60 Gy RTX were significantly lower than implants receiving < 60 Gy (82.8% versus 90.1%, P =0.035). Placement >1 year after RTX completion improved implant survival rates (96.8% versus 82.5%, P =0.001). Implants receiving pre-placement RTX had increased survival with RTX postablation versus before (91.2% versus 74.8%, P <0.001). One hundred seventy-seven implants were placed only in FFF with higher survival than implants placed in FFF or native bone (90.4% versus 83.5%, P =0.035). Radiotherapy is detrimental to implant survival rates when administered too soon, in high doses, and before tumor resection. A novel evidence-based clinical decision-making algorithm was presented for utilization when determining the optimal treatment order for HNC patients. The overall survival of dental prostheses is acceptable, reaffirming their role as a key component in rehabilitating HNC patients. Considerations must be made regarding RTX dosage, timing, and implant location to optimize survival rates and patient outcomes for improved functionality, aesthetics, and comfort.

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.

Effectiveness of dental implants in patients undergoing radiotherapy for head and neck cancer: An umbrella review

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this overview is to evaluate the effectiveness of dental implants placed in patients who underwent radiotherapy for the treatment of head and neck cancer, as well as to assess the methodological quality of the included systematic reviews.

METHODS

The study was conducted in four PubMed, Lilacs, Dare Cochrane and Google Scholar databases until July 2022, using the descriptors "Radiotherapy," "Dental implants," and "Head and Neck Cancer."

RESULTS

958 studies were found in the initial search and after applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, fifteen systematic reviews were selected to compose this overview and had their methodological quality evaluated by the AMSTAR 2 tool.

RESULTS

24,996 implants in 5487 patients were evaluated with a rate of success rate of 86.2% in patients who underwent radiotherapy and 95.2% in patients who did not undergo radiotherapy. Only one of the systematic reviews was of high quality according to AMSTAR 2.

CONCLUSION

Oral rehabilitation with dental implants in patients with a history of head and neck cancer undergoing radiotherapy is a valid therapy. However, given the level of evidence found, further studies with better design are necessary to provide greater confidence in the clinical decision.

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.

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.

Clinical outcomes of dental implants in head and neck cancer patients: An overview

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes of dental implants (DIs) in patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) treated with radiotherapy (RT), isolated chemotherapy, or bone modifying agents (BMAs).

STUDY DESIGN

This study was registered in the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42018102772); conducted via the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist; and based on PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and gray literature searches. The selection of studies was performed in 2 phases by 2 independent reviewers. The risk of bias (RoB) was assessed by the Measurement Tool to Assess the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews 2.

RESULTS

Twenty systematic reviews were included in the qualitative analysis. The majority scored as having high RoB (n = 11). Primary DIs placement in the mandible of patients with HNC subjected to RT doses <50 Gy was associated with better survival rates.

CONCLUSIONS

The placements of DIs could be considered safe in patients with HNC in sites of alveolar bone that received RT (≤5000 Gy); however, no conclusions could be made in patients with cancer managed by chemotherapy or BMAs. Due to the heterogeneity of studies included, the recommendation for DIs placement in patients with cancer should be carefully considered. Future better controlled randomized clinical trials are required to provide enhanced clinical guidelines for best patient care.

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.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

MATERIAL AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

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

REGISTRATION NUMBER

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

Risk factor analysis of dental implants in patients with irradiated head and neck cancer

Background

We investigated dental implant outcomes in patients who had previously received radiotherapy (RT) for head and neck malignancies.

Methods

We reviewed 90 dental implants in 27 patients who received RT for head and neck cancer and received dental implants afterwards. The cumulative implant survival rate (CISR) was calculated. In addition, the implant quality was assessed using “Health Scale for Dental Implants.”

Results

The CISR at 3 years was 79.6%. The mean radiation dose at the implant site (D_mean) was identified as an independent prognostic factor for implant survival. No implant failed if D_mean was less than 38 Gy. Regarding implant quality, dental implants in grafted bone and D_mean were independent risk factors.

Conclusions

D_mean was identified as an independent prognostic factor for implant survival and quality. Dental implants can be safely considered when D_mean is lower than 38 Gy.

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.

Mandibular rehabilitation: From the Andy Gump deformity to jaw-in-a-day

The mandible is a critical structure of the lower facial skeleton which plays an important role in several vital functions. Segmental resection of the mandible is at times required in patients with advanced oral cavity malignancies, primary mandibular tumors, and radiation or medication induced osteonecrosis. Mandibulectomy can significantly decrease quality of life, and thus mandibular reconstruction is an important aspect of the operative plan. Mandibular reconstruction is challenging due to the complex three-dimensional anatomy of the mandible, and the precision required to restore dental occlusion in dentate patients. Significant advances have been made over the past decade in the ability to reconstruct and rehabilitate patients after a segmental mandibulectomy. This review will highlight these advances and discuss the timing of dental implantation.

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.

Implant Dental Rehabilitation of Fibula-Free Flap Reconstructed Jaws

BACKGROUND

The possibility of placing dental fixtures in the reconstructed regions allows us to overcome the problems related to dental rehabilitation with removable prosthesis. The aim of this study was to assess the clinic-radiological outcome in a series of patients who underwent fibula flap jaws reconstruction and rehabilitation with implant-supported prosthesis with a minimum follow-up of 24 months.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The study included 10 patients who underwent reconstruction with fibula free flap between 2010 and 2018. Albrektsson criteria were used to define the implant survival. The follow-up evaluation was performed according to a standardized protocol including clinical examination, radiological evaluation (panoramic radiograph) and patient interview.

RESULTS

A total of 45 implants were positioned.The time between mandibular reconstruction and implant placement ranged from 13 months to 39 months.The prosthesis used was fixed in 6 cases and supported overdenture in 4 cases.No implant failure was observed.Regarding implant survival no infections were observed in these series. Nine patients out of 10 had no pain and signs of mobility. Seven patients out of 10 had absence of peri-implant radiolucency at the panoramic radiograph.One patient presented with an overgrowth of granulomatous soft tissue around the implant abutments that caused pain.

CONCLUSIONS

Implant placed in vascularized bone grafts are a safe and reliable opportunity to rehabilitate patients following mandibular resection. The results of this series demonstrate a high survival rate for implants placed in reconstructed mandibles with an improvement of the quality of life.

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

BACKGROUND

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

PURPOSE

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

MATERIAL AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

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

Systematic review and pooled analysis of survival rates, success, and outcomes of osseointegrated implants in a variety of composite free flaps

The aim of this review was to provide an update on survival rates of osseointegrated implants into common composite free flaps used for maxillary and mandibular reconstructions and identify factors affecting outcomes. PubMed, Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched. Included studies reported implant survival by flap type. Results were pooled and survival was estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method. Variables affecting survival were assessed using Cox regression. Thirty-two of the 2631 articles retrieved were included, totaling 2626 implants placed into fibula, iliac crest, scapula, and radial forearm free flaps. Pooled survival showed 94% 5-year survival of implants in fibula and iliac crest with no difference between groups (P = .3). Factors effecting survival included radiotherapy (HR 2.3, 95% CI 1.2-4.6, P = .027) and malignant disease (HR 2.2, 95%CI 1.6-3.1, P < .001). Implant survival appears adequate across common flap types; however, there are limited numbers reported in less common flaps.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

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

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.

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.

Radiation-induced changes in the microstructure of epithelial cells of the oral mucosa: A comparative light and electron microscopic study

OBJECTIVES

The microplicae is a typical structure of the epithelial cell surface of the oral mucosa. The cell surface is potentially of great significance, as it provides the underlying basis for the protective function of the salivary pellicle. The aim of this study was to investigate whether radiation therapy affects the surface morphology of the superficial cells of the human oral mucosa in patients who have received radiotherapy for oral cancer.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Oral mucosal tissue samples from 91 patients were collected during dental implant surgery or ablative surgery. Study group 1 consisted of 28 patients who underwent dental implant surgery after radiotherapy. Group 2 consisted of five patients who developed osteoradionecrosis. Group 3 consisted of eight oral cancer patients without radiotherapy. Group 4 consisted of 50 clinically healthy subjects as controls. The samples were studied with scanning electron microscopy and compared with both light and transmission electron micrographs.

RESULTS

Radiation therapy (RT) induces breakage and destruction in the microplicae morphology and declines the density of the microplicae surface structures. In some of the irradiated cells, the microplicae were completely vanished, especially in patients who developed osteoradionecrosis. In non-irradiated tissue, the microplicae of the superficial epithelial cells were intact in all cases.

CONCLUSION

Scanning electron microscopy, in contrast to light microscopy, appears to be a useful tool to reveal the condition of superficial oral mucosal cells. In respect of the possible pathogenesis of osteoradionecrosis, the radiation-induced damage of the microplicae and its influence on the mucosal salivary pellicle is discussed.

Prosthetic rehabilitation following lateral resection of the mandible with a long cantilever implant-supported fixed prosthesis: A 3-year clinical report

This clinical report describes the prosthetic management of the surgical reconstruction of a patient after mandibular resection. Complete oral rehabilitation was achieved with a maxillary complete denture and a mandibular implant-supported fixed prosthesis with a custom titanium framework and a long unilateral cantilever.

The effect of radiotherapy on survival of dental implants in head and neck cancer patients

Objectives

To explore the current literature of the survival of dental implants in irradiated head and neck cancer patients considering the role of implant location, bone augmentation, dose of radiation and timing of implant placement.

Study Design

Pubmed search was conducted to identify articles published between January 2000 and December 2014 and presenting data of dental implant survival with radiotherapy in head and neck cancer patients. Studies on animal subjects and craniofacial implants were excluded.

Results

18 articles out of 27 were eligible for inclusion in this systematic review. 12 out of 18 studies reported favorable outcome of dental implants and radiotherapy with survival rates between 74.4% and 97%. Seven out of ten studies comparing the survival rates according to site of implant placement reported that implants were found to osseointegrate with greater success in the irradiated mandible than irradiated maxilla. 5 studies which compared implant survival in irradiated native bone versus irradiated grafted bone reported that irradiated grafted bone showed a significantly reduced dental implant survival rate in comparison to irradiated native bone. 6 out of 18studies in which radiation doses exceeded 70 Gy reported lower survival rates of dental implants in comparison to the studies in which radiation doses were ≤70Gy. Higher survival rates were reported in 2 studies in which implants placement was before radiotherapy in comparison to the remaining 16 studies in which implants placement was after radiotherapy.

Conclusions

Dental implants may be affected by radiotherapy especially when they are placed in maxilla, in grafted bone, or after radiation, however, they remain a functional option for rehabilitation of head and cancer patients. More Prospective cohort studies and randomized controlled trails are still needed to draw more evidence based conclusions.

Key words:Dental implants, implant survival, radiotherapy, head and neck cancer.

Long-term success of dental implant-supported dentures in postirradiated patients treated for neoplasms of the maxillofacial skeleton: a retrospective study

OBJECTIVES

The reconstruction of oral function in irradiated patients with craniofacial tumors is a significant challenge. The aim of this study was to detect long-term success of dental implant-supported dentures in postirradiated patients treated for neoplasms of the maxillofacial skeleton.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From 2004 to 2011, 36 irradiated patients underwent oral function reconstruction using implant-supported prostheses. Bone augmentation was completed using vascularized bone grafts in 22 patients. Fourteen patients were treated by hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBO). A total of 198 dental implants were used in jaw rehabilitation. After loading, implant success rates, biological and prosthetic complications, patient satisfaction, and psychological changes were recorded.

RESULTS

Bone augmentation of the jaw was successful and vascularized grafts provided an additional vascular supply in compromised irradiated tissue. Rehabilitation was successful in all of the patients after loading. Thirty-eight dental implants failed, and 35 implants were removed. The success rate of the implants was 93.6 % for 10 years after loading. It was not a significant difference in implant success rate between the HBO group and the other groups. The prosthodontic maintenance results and complication rates showed that patients required intervention 0.19 times per year. All patients were satisfied with the oral restoration results.

CONCLUSION

The restoration of oral function in radiotherapy patients with tumor resection using implant-supported prostheses is a viable treatment option.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Either alone or in combination with HBO, dental implant-supported prostheses can be used an effective therapeutic approach for irradiated patients with oral function reconstruction.

A critical assessment of oral care protocols for patients under radiation therapy in the regional University Hospital Network of Madrid (Spain)

BACKGROUND

This research was aimed to critically evaluate, under the light of the available scientific evidence, the oral care protocols recommended by different hospitals in head and neck cancer (HNC) patients under radiation therapy.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A questionnaire requesting all the relevant information for the oral care of these patients was sent to the 9 University Hospitals in Madrid. The answers were categorized and analyzed. In addition, an electronic search was conducted to identify the most relevant papers (systematic reviews [SR] and randomized clinical trials [RCTs]) assessing oral care protocols for patients treated for HNC with radiation therapy.

RESULTS

Eight out of nine centers answered the questionnaire and the retrieved information was tabulated and compared. These recommendations were analyzed by a computerized search on MEDLINE and the Cochrane Oral Health Collaboration Database. The results of the analysis clearly shown a great heterogeneity, in terms of oral health care protocols, regarding the management of irradiated patients (for HNC) within the Hospitals of Madrid region. In addition, some of the recommendations lack solid scientific support.

CONCLUSIONS

The present survey revealed that the recommendations provided by the different hospitals were clearly different. The available evidence, supported by SR and RCTs, suggested the need of an oral assessment before cancer treatment, in order to prevent and treat dental pathologies and avoiding potential complications; during cancer treatment, it is relevant monitoring the patient in order to decrease the severity of the side effects, and to avoid any tooth extraction or surgery and special attention should be paid to mucositis, xerostomia and candidiasis; after cancer treatment, the following are relevant aspects: the risk of osteoradionecrosis, trismus, caries and the risks associated to dental implants.

KEY WORDS

Head and neck cancer, supportive care in cancer, radiotherapy complications, management and oral care on cancer treatment.

Viability of dental implants in head and neck irradiated patients: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the safety of dental implants placed in irradiated bone and to discuss their viability when placed post-radiotherapy (RT).

METHODS

A systematic review was performed to answer the questions: "Are dental implants in irradiated bone viable?" and "What are the main factors that influence the loss of implants in irradiated patients?"

RESULTS

The search strategy resulted in 8 publications. A total of 331 patients received 1237 implants, with an overall failure rate of 9.53%. The osseointegration success rates ranged between 62.5% and 100%. The optimal time interval between irradiation and dental implantation varied from 6 to 15 months.

CONCLUSION

The interval time between RT and implant placement and the radiation doses are not associated with significant implant failure rates. The placement of implants in irradiated bone is viable, and head and neck RT should not be considered as a contraindication for dental rehabilitation with implants. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Head Neck 38: E2229-E2240, 2016.

Soft tissue management and prosthetic rehabilitation in a tongue cancer patient

One major challenge in treating head and neck oncologic patients is to achieve an acceptable recovery of physiologic functions compatible with the complete tumor excision. However, after tumor resection, some patients present a surgically altered anatomy incompatible with prosthetic rehabilitation, unless some soft tissue correction is carried out. The aim of the present study is to describe the overall mandibular prosthetic rehabilitation of a postoncologic patient focusing on the possibility of soft tissue correction as a part of the treatment. A 72-year-old woman, who undergone a hemiglossectomy for squamous cell carcinoma several years before, was referred to our department needing a new prosthesis. The patient presented partial mandibular edentulism, defects in tongue mobility, and a bridge of scar tissue connecting one side of the tongue to the alveolar ridge. A diode laser (980 nm) was used to remove the fibrous scar tissue. After reestablishing a proper vestibular depth and soft tissue morphology, two implants were placed in the interforaminal region of the mandible to support an overdenture.