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

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.

Implant-supported prosthetic rehabilitation after Ameloblastomas treatment: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Ameloblastoma (AM), the benign counterpart of ameloblastic carcinoma, is a benign odontogenic tumor of epithelial origin, naturally aggressive, with unlimited growth potential and a high tendency to relapse if not adequately removed. Patients with AM treated surgically can benefit from dental implant therapy, promoting oral rehabilitation and improving their quality of life. The present study aimed to determine the survival rate of dental implants placed after surgical treatment of patients affected by AM. In addition, there were two secondary objectives: 1) To evaluate which dental implant loading protocols are most frequently used and 2) To determine the type of prosthetic restoration most commonly used in these patients.

METHODS

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines were followed during the study. Searches were performed in three databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Google Scholar) until November 2023. Additionally, the electronic search was enriched by an iterative hand search of journals related to oral pathology and medicine, maxillofacial surgery, and oral prosthodontics and implantology. Only reports and case series in English from January 2003 to date were included. The Joanna Briggs Institute tool (JBI-Case Reports/Case Series) was used for the study quality assessment.

RESULTS

The total number of patients and implants studied were 64 and 271, respectively, all with surgically treated AM. The patient's ages ranged from 8 to 79 years, with a mean (SD) age of 37.3 ± 16.4. Fifty-three percent were male and 47% were female. The range of follow-up duration was 1 to 22 years. An implant survival/success rate of 98.1% was reported. In addition, most of them were conventionally loaded (38.3%). Hybrid implant-supported fixed dentures were the most commonly used by prosthodontists (53%).

CONCLUSIONS

Oral rehabilitation with dental implants inserted in free flaps for orofacial reconstruction in surgically treated patients with AM can be considered a safe and successful treatment modality.

Prosthetic Oral Rehabilitation with CAD/CAM Suprastructures in Patients with Severe Tissue Deficits: A Case Series

This article presents the outcomes of prosthetic oral rehabilitation using CAD/CAM telescopic bar overdentures in patients with oral cancer (n = 3), severe facial trauma (n = 2), or various syndromes (n = 1), all suffering from severe tissue deficits and requiring complex and comprehensive oral rehabilitation. The aim was to assess the durability and functionality of implant-retained prosthetic structures, ensuring easy oral hygiene and minimizing specialized follow-up needs. The data for this study were sourced from a retrospective cohort at Helsinki University Hospital. The prosthetic reconstruction encompassed the Atlantis 2in1 and the Createch removable telescopic systems. Thus, 40 implants were placed (4 to 7 per patient), with prosthetic structures in the maxilla (n = 4 patients), in the mandible (n = 1), and in both jaws (n = 1). Two patients experienced no complications, two patients had part of the acrylic resin break, and one patient experienced loosening of the bar structure. All complications associated with prosthetic structures were successfully managed, and none of the implants were lost. The follow-up time ranged from 7 to 126 months. This rehabilitation is proved to be an effective solution for patients with complex oral conditions, facilitating both functional restoration and ease of maintenance. These findings underscore the importance of individualized treatment approaches in cases of tissue deficits.

Site-specific radiation dosage and implant survival in oral cancer patients: A cohort study

OBJECTIVES

We assessed the radiation dosages (Dmean ) on implant regions to identify the threshold for implant loss in patients with an intraoral malignancy treated with dental implants to support a mandibular denture during ablative surgery before volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data was collected prospectively from 28 patients treated surgically for an intraoral malignancy, followed by postoperative radiotherapy (VMAT) and analyzed retrospectively. Patients received 2 implants in the native mandible during ablative surgery. Implant-specific Dmean values were retrieved from the patients' files. Radiographic bone loss was measured 1 year after implant placement and during the last follow-up appointment. Implant survival was analyzed with the Kaplan-Meier method. Univariate logistic regression and Cox-regression analyses were performed to investigate the effect of increasing implant-specific radiation dosages on implant loss.

RESULTS

Five out of 56 placed implants were lost during follow-up (median 36.0 months, IQR 39.0). Radiographically, peri-implant bone loss occurred in implants with a Dmean  > 40 Gy. Implant loss occurred only in implants with a Dmean  > 50 Gy.

CONCLUSION

An implant-specific Dmean higher than 50 Gy is related to more peri-implant bone loss and, eventually, implant loss.

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.

Towards Optimum Mandibular Reconstruction for Dental Occlusal Rehabilitation: From Preoperative Virtual Surgery to Autogenous Particulate Cancellous Bone and Marrow Graft with Custom-Made Titanium Mesh-A Retrospective Study

The purpose of this retrospective study was to evaluate computer-assisted virtual surgery and the outcomes of mandibular reconstruction using an autogenous particulate cancellous bone and marrow (PCBM) graft combined with a custom-made titanium mesh (TiMesh) using a three-dimensional (3D) printing model. Eighteen consecutive patients were included, and preoperative virtual simulation surgery was performed using digital data. Segmental bone defects showed deviation of the mandible due to displacement of the condyle and segments, unnatural length of the mandibular body, or poorer intermaxillary relationship compared to the marginal bone defect caused by previous operations. These mandibular disharmonies could be simulated, and virtual surgery was performed on a computer with adjustment of displaced mandibular segments, length of the mandibular body, and dental arch with digital bone augmentation. TiMesh was manually pre-bent using a 3D printing model, and PCBM from the iliac crest was grafted with TiMesh. The short-term clinical results were good; reconstruction of the alveolar crest was prosthetically desirable; and minor complications were observed. In conclusion, virtual reconstruction is crucial for treating complex deviated mandibles. Accurate condylar and dental arch positions with an optimum mandibular length are important for prosthetically satisfactory mandibular reconstruction.

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.

The role of computer aided design/computer assisted manufacturing (CAD/CAM) and 3- dimensional printing in head and neck oncologic surgery: A review and future directions

Microvascular free flap reconstruction has remained the standard of care in reconstruction of large tissue defects following ablative head and neck oncologic surgery, especially for bony structures. Computer aided design/computer assisted manufacturing (CAD/CAM) and 3-dimensionally (3D) printed models and devices offer novel solutions for reconstruction of bony defects. Conventional free hand techniques have been enhanced using 3D printed anatomic models for reference and pre-bending of titanium reconstructive plates, which has dramatically improved intraoperative and microvascular ischemia times. Improvements led to current state of the art uses which include full virtual planning (VP), 3D printed osteotomy guides, and patient specific reconstructive plates, with advanced options incorporating dental rehabilitation and titanium bone replacements into the primary surgical plan through use of these tools. Limitations such as high costs and delays in device manufacturing may be mitigated with in house software and workflows. Future innovations still in development include printing custom prosthetics, 'bioprinting' of tissue engineered scaffolds, integration of therapeutic implants, and other possibilities as this technology continues to rapidly advance. This review summarizes the literature and serves as a summary guide to the historic, current, advanced, and future possibilities of 3D printing within head and neck oncologic surgery and bony reconstruction. This review serves as a summary guide to the historic, current, advanced, and future roles of CAD/CAM and 3D printing within the field of head and neck oncologic surgery and bony reconstruction.

Value of FDG-PET/MR in Oral Focus Assessment in Head and Neck Cancer Patients-A Feasibility Study

FDG-PET/MR is a hybrid imaging modality used for the staging and restaging of advanced head & neck cancer (HNC) patients. Their treatment typically involves radiation therapy, which requires previous dental focus assessment. The aim of this study was to analyze if staging FDG-PET/MR is a valuable tool for oral focus assessment. For this purpose, FDG-PET/MR findings, such as metabolic activity of periapical radiolucencies and marginal periodontitis, were retrospectively compared with conventional standardized dental focus assessment, including dental radiographs and clinical assessment of 124 teeth in seven patients. Increased FDG uptake of periapical lesions was found in one out of 23 lesions. Increased FDG uptake of the marginal periodontium was recorded in one out of 34 lesions. In summary, standardized dental focus assessment by panoramic radiography and periapical radiographs may be enriched by information from FDG-PET/MR, showing active inflammation in dental foci. However, many dental foci have no correlate in FDG-PET/MR. The treatment decision for oral foci may benefit from the visualized presence or absence of metabolic activity on FDG-PET/MR.

Long-term survival of implant-based oral rehabilitation following maxillofacial reconstruction with vascularized bone flap

Aim

The aim of the study was to assess the 5-year cumulative survival rate of implant-based dental rehabilitation following maxillofacial reconstruction with a vascularized bone flap and to investigate the potential risk factors which might influence the survival rate.

Materials and methods

A retrospective cohort study was designed. Inclusion criteria involved 18 years old or above patients with the availability of clinical and radiological data and a minimum follow-up 1 year following implant placement. The cumulative survival rate was analyzed by Kaplan–Meier curves and the influential risk factors were assessed using univariate log-rank tests and multivariable Cox-regression analysis.

Results

151 implants were assessed in 40 patients with a mean age of 56.43 ± 15.28 years at the time of implantation. The mean number of implants placed per patient was 3.8 ± 1.3 with a follow-up period of 50.0 ± 32.0 months. The cumulative survival at 1-, 2- and 5-years was 96%, 87%, and 81%. Patients with systemic diseases (HR = 3.75, 95% CI 1.65–8.52; p = 0.002), irradiated flap (HR = 2.27, 95% CI 1.00–5.17; p = 0.05) and poor oral hygiene (HR = 11.67; 95% CI 4.56–29.88; p < 0.0001) were at a significantly higher risk of implant failure.

Conclusion

The cumulative implant survival rate was highest at 1st year followed by 2nd and 5th year, indicating that the risk of implant failure increased over time. Risk indicators that seem to be detrimental to long-term survival include poor oral hygiene, irradiated flap and systemic diseases.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40729-022-00413-7.

Salivary Gland Hypofunction and/or Xerostomia Induced by Nonsurgical Cancer Therapies: ISOO/MASCC/ASCO Guideline

PURPOSE

To provide evidence-based recommendations for prevention and management of salivary gland hypofunction and xerostomia induced by nonsurgical cancer therapies.

METHODS

Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer/International Society of Oral Oncology (MASCC/ISOO) and ASCO convened a multidisciplinary Expert Panel to evaluate the evidence and formulate recommendations. PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched for randomized controlled trials published between January 2009 and June 2020. The guideline also incorporated two previous systematic reviews conducted by MASCC/ISOO, which included studies published from 1990 through 2008.

RESULTS

A total of 58 publications were identified: 46 addressed preventive interventions and 12 addressed therapeutic interventions. A majority of the evidence focused on the setting of radiation therapy for head and neck cancer. For the prevention of salivary gland hypofunction and/or xerostomia in patients with head and neck cancer, there is high-quality evidence for tissue-sparing radiation modalities. Evidence is weaker or insufficient for other interventions. For the management of salivary gland hypofunction and/or xerostomia, intermediate-quality evidence supports the use of topical mucosal lubricants, saliva substitutes, and agents that stimulate the salivary reflex.

RECOMMENDATIONS

For patients who receive radiation therapy for head and neck cancer, tissue-sparing radiation modalities should be used when possible to reduce the risk of salivary gland hypofunction and xerostomia. Other risk-reducing interventions that may be offered during radiation therapy for head and neck cancer include bethanechol and acupuncture. For patients who develop salivary gland hypofunction and/or xerostomia, interventions include topical mucosal lubricants, saliva substitutes, and sugar-free lozenges or chewing gum. For patients with head and neck cancer, oral pilocarpine and oral cevimeline, acupuncture, or transcutaneous electrostimulation may be offered after radiation therapy.Additional information can be found at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines.

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.

Immediate implant-retained prosthetic obturation after maxillectomy based on zygomatic implant placement by 3D-guided surgery: a cadaver study

Background

The aim of this study was to introduce a complete 3D workflow for immediate implant retained prosthetic rehabilitation following maxillectomy in cancer surgery. The workflow consists of a 3D virtual surgical planning for tumor resection, zygomatic implant placement, and for an implant-retained prosthetic-obturator to fit the planned outcome situation for immediate loading.

Materials and methods

In this study, 3D virtual surgical planning and resection of the maxilla, followed by guided placement of 10 zygomatic implants, using custom cutting and drill/placement-guides, was performed on 5 fresh frozen human cadavers. A preoperatively digitally designed and printed obturator prosthesis was placed and connected to the zygomatic implants. The accuracy of the implant positioning was obtained using 3D deviation analysis by merging the pre- and post-operative CT scan datasets.

Results

The preoperatively designed and manufactured obturator prostheses matched accurately the per-operative implant positions. All five obturators could be placed and fixated for immediate loading. The mean prosthetic point deviation on the cadavers was 1.03 ± 0.85 mm; the mean entry point deviation was 1.20 ± 0.62 mm; and the 3D angle deviation was 2.97 ± 1.44°.

Conclusions

It is possible to 3D plan and accurately execute the ablative surgery, placement of zygomatic implants, and immediate placement of an implant-retained obturator prosthesis with 3D virtual surgical planning.The next step is to apply the workflow in the operating room in patients planned for maxillectomy.

European white paper: oropharyngeal dysphagia in head and neck cancer

Purpose

To develop a European White Paper document on oropharyngeal dysphagia (OD) in head and neck cancer (HNC). There are wide variations in the management of OD associated with HNC across Europe.

Methods

Experts in the management of specific aspects of OD in HNC across Europe were delegated by their professional medical and multidisciplinary societies to contribute to this document. Evidence is based on systematic reviews, consensus-based position statements, and expert opinion.

Results

Twenty-four sections on HNC-specific OD topics.

Conclusion

This European White Paper summarizes current best practice on management of OD in HNC, providing recommendations to support patients and health professionals. The body of literature and its level of evidence on diagnostics and treatment for OD in HNC remain poor. This is in the context of an expected increase in the prevalence of OD due to HNC in the near future. Contributing factors to increased prevalence include aging of our European population (including HNC patients) and an increase in human papillomavirus (HPV) related cancer, despite the introduction of HPV vaccination in various countries. We recommend timely implementation of OD screening in HNC patients while emphasizing the need for robust scientific research on the treatment of OD in HNC. Meanwhile, its management remains a challenge for European professional associations and policymakers.

Use of dentures, receipt of information, quality of life, and oral function following radiotherapy for head and neck cancer

BACKGROUND

Teeth with a poor prognosis are often extracted prior to radiotherapy for head and neck cancer (HNC) in order to help prevent the need for dental treatment after radiotherapy that might in turn lead to the development of osteoradionecrosis. However, the details and impact of replacing missing teeth after radiotherapy for HNC have received little attention, especially from the patients' perspective.

AIMS

This study aimed to assess the use, satisfaction, and impact of denture use following radiotherapy for HNC. The study also sought to determine patients' satisfaction with information about replacing their missing teeth postradiotherapy. Finally, this study also aimed to assess interest in replacing missing teeth for those who had not done so.

METHODS

A structured, validated, and reliable questionnaire was sent to HNC patients who had received radiotherapy and had missing teeth at the time of discharge. In addition to demographic details and self-reported oral hygiene, the questionnaire included questions on use of (or interest in) dentures, satisfaction with dentures, satisfaction with information about replacing missing teeth, QoL as measured by two questions from the short version of WHOQoL-BREF, and oral functioning as measured by BCSQ-H&N. Demographic details and clinical details were extracted from the hospital records.

RESULTS

N = 80 (24%) returned a completed questionnaire. Participants had an average of 12 missing teeth (SD = 8.05). Most (n = 60, 75%) had not replaced their missing teeth. Of these, 35 (58%) were very or extremely interested in doing so. For HNC survivors who wore dentures, there was variable satisfaction and a number of side-effects of wearing dentures. Satisfaction with information about replacing missing teeth was low. There was no statistical difference in QoL or oral functioning between participants who wore dentures and participants who did not wear dentures. However, those with dentures reported fewer problems with carrying out daily routines as measured by the oral functioning tool.

CONCLUSIONS

QoL and oral functioning were similar regardless of denture use, highlighting reduced oral function in both those with and without dentures. In those who had not replaced their missing teeth, there was substantial interest in doing so and thus may be an unmet need. The dental team could offer HNC survivors more support after radiotherapy and following denture provision to improve information about denture use and increase satisfaction with dentures.

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

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

Mandibular dental implant placement immediately after teeth removal in head and neck cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Little is known about immediate implant placement in head and neck cancer patients. We studied implant survival and functional outcomes of overdentures fabricated on implants placed immediately after removal of the lower dentition during ablative surgery or preceding primary radiotherapy (RT).

METHODS

Inclusion criteria were primary head and neck cancer, dentate lower jaw, and indication for removal of remaining teeth. Two implants to support a mandibular overdenture were placed immediately after extraction of the dentition during ablative surgery, or prior to starting primary radiotherapy. Standardized questionnaires and clinical assessments were conducted (median follow-up 18.5 months, IQR 13.3).

RESULTS

Fifty-eight implants were placed in 29 patients. Four implants were lost (implant survival rate 93.1%). In 9 patients, no functional overdenture could be made. All patients were satisfied with their dentures.

CONCLUSIONS

Combining dental implant placement with removal of remaining teeth preceding head neck oncology treatment results in a favorable treatment outcome.

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.