Survival, Function, and Complications of Oral Implants Placed in Bone Flaps in Jaw Rehabilitation: A Systematic Review

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

OBJECTIVE

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

STUDY DESIGN

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Evaluation of postoperative peri-implant reactive tissues following implant supported prosthetic rehabilitation in fibula free flaps

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to measure the frequency of peri-implant reactive tissue development in a cohort of patients following immediate implant supported prosthetic rehabilitation in fibula free flaps at our institution and to document 2 cases of management based on our institution's experience.

STUDY DESIGN

To address this question of study design, a case series was performed from October 2014 to May 2022. We included patients that underwent a fibula free flap reconstruction of the mandible or maxilla with immediate implant placement and dental prostheses fabrication. Forty-four patients met the inclusion criteria, and, among the participants, a total of 26 male patients (59%) and 18 female patients (41%) were evaluated, with 185 implants placed all together.

RESULTS

Twenty patients (45%) were treated for benign pathology, 12 with malignant pathology (27%), 5 with trauma (11%), and 7 with osteoradionecrosis (16%). Postoperative peri-implant reactive tissues were seen to develop at 39 of the implant sites (21%).

CONCLUSION

Reactive tissues were found to be a common complication in patients treated with fibular free flap reconstructions involving implant rehabilitation. Our institution noted that local excision of such reactive tissues, in addition to silver nitrate cauterization and topical steroid application, may provide reasonable success in dealing with these occurrences. (Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol YEAR;VOL:page range).

Free flap jaw reconstruction with dental implantation: A single-institution experience

BACKGROUND

We sought to review our institution's experience with dental implant placement in free flap jaw reconstruction to determine factors impacting restoration of dental occlusion.

METHODS

Exactly 48 patients underwent free flap jaw reconstruction with or without dental restoration from 2017 to 2022. Primary outcome was achievement of restored dental occlusion after jaw free flap reconstruction.

RESULTS

A total of 48 patients with a mean age of 59.8 ± 16.4 years underwent jaw reconstruction from 2017 to 2022. Ten patients (20.8%) received osteointegrated dental implants. Two patients received a temporary dental prosthesis, 12 ± 4 months after initial reconstruction. Three patients received a final prosthesis, with a mean time to final prosthesis of 17.7 ± 12.4 months. Five patients did not receive any prosthesis despite placement of implants.

CONCLUSION

A minority of patients received dental implant placement with free flap jaw reconstruction and only a small subset of these received a definitive dental prosthesis.

Prefabricated Fibula Flap vs Bone-Driven and Delayed Implant Installation for Jaw Reconstruction

Importance

Restoration of dental occlusion and oral rehabilitation is the ultimate goal of functional jaw reconstruction.

Objective

To evaluate the prefabricated fibula flap (PFF) technique in occlusion-driven jaw reconstruction for benign or previously treated malignant disease.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cohort study was conducted from January 2000 to December 2019 at the University of Alberta Hospital and Institute of Reconstructive Sciences in Medicine in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, among patients who underwent PFF or bone-driven and delayed osseointegrated implant installation (BDD). Patients were followed up for a minimum of 1 year after occlusal rehabilitation. Data were analyzed from July 2021 to June 2022.

Exposures

Patients underwent BDD or PFF, which consists of osseointegrated dental implant installation and skin grafting of the fibular bone 3 to 6 months before jaw tumor resection or defect reconstruction. The implant osseointegration is completed at the time of jaw reconstruction, allowing for full reconstruction, loading, and restoration of the dental occlusion in the immediate postoperative period.

Main outcomes and Measure

Safety, effectiveness, accuracy, timeliness of occlusal reconstruction, and aesthetic appeal were compared between PFF and BDD. Groups were compared for the following variables: postoperative complications, number of bony segments used, number of procedures needed, total operative time, time to occlusal rehabilitation, and number of implants installed, exposed, lost, and used (ie, exposed implants - lost implants). Aesthetic appeal was assessed using standardized full-face and profile digital photographs taken before and 6 to 12 months after the operation and analyzed by 3 naive raters.

Results

Among 9 patients receiving PFF (mean [SD] age, 43.3 [13.0] years; 7 men [77.8%]) and 12 patients receiving BDD (mean [SD] age, 41.9 [18.0] years; 8 men [66.7%]), the overall complication rate was similar (4 patients [44.4%] vs 3 patients [25.0%], respectively; relative risk, 1.78 [95% CI, 0.52 to 6.04]). The number of patients with implant loss was similar between PFF and BDD groups (0 patients vs 3 patients [25.0%], respectively; difference, -25.0 percentage points [95% CI, -48.4 to 9.7 percentage points]). PFF had a clinically meaningful faster mean (SD) occlusal rehabilitation compared with BDD (12.1 [1.9] months vs 60.4 [23.1] months; difference, -48.3 months [95% CI, -64.5 to -32.0 months]). The mean (SD) difference in preoperative to postoperative aesthetic score was similar between PFF and BDD groups (-0.8 [1.5] vs -0.2 [0.8]; difference, -0.6 [95% CI, -1.6 to 0.4]).

Conclusions and Relevance

This study found that PFF compared with BDD was a safe, effective, and aesthetic reconstructive option for patients with benign or previously treated jaw malignant tumors. This technique may provide rapid occlusal reconstruction and oral rehabilitation.

Oral rehabilitation and associated quality of life following mandibular reconstruction with free fibula flap: a cross-sectional study

Introduction

Mandibular reconstruction with the free fibula flap (FFF) has become a standardized procedure. The situation is different with oral rehabilitation, so the purpose of this study was to investigate the frequency of implant placement and prosthetic restoration. Additionally, the patients' situation, motivation, and treatment course were structurally assessed.

Materials and methods

All cases between January 2013 and December 2018 that underwent mandibular reconstruction in our department with a free fibula flap and gave written informed consent to participate were interviewed with two structured questionnaires about their restoration and quality of life. Additionally, medical records, general information, status of implants and therapy, and metric analyses of the inserted implants were performed.

Results

In total 59 patients were enrolled and analyzed in this monocentric study. Overall, oral rehabilitation was achieved in 23.7% at the time of investigation. In detail, implants were inserted in 37.3% of patients and showed an 83.3% survival of dental implants. Of these implanted patients, dental implants were successfully restored with a prosthetic restoration in 63.6. Within this subgroup, satisfaction with the postoperative aesthetic and functional result was 79.9% and with the oral rehabilitation process was 68.2%. Satisfaction with the implant-borne prosthesis was 87.5%, with non-oral-squamous-cell-carcinoma patients being statistically significantly more content with the handling (p=0.046) and care (p=0.031) of the prosthesis.

Discussion

Despite the well-reconstructed bony structures, there is a need to increase the effort of achieving oral rehabilitation, especially looking at the patient's persistent motivation for the procedure.

A comparison of accuracy among different approaches of static-guided implant placement in patients treated with mandibular reconstruction: A retrospective study

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the differences in the accuracy of immediate intraoral, immediate extraoral, and delayed dental implant placement with surgical guides (static computer-aided implant surgery) in patients treated with mandibular reconstruction.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study. The patients were divided into three groups: immediate intraoral placement (IIO), immediate extraoral placement (IEO), and delayed placement (DEL). Four variables were used to compare the planned and actual implant positions: angular deviation, three-dimensional (3D) deviation at the entry point of the implant, 3D deviation at the apical point of the implant, and depth deviation.

RESULTS

The angular deviation was significantly higher in the IIO group than in the IEO (p < .05) and DEL (p < .05) groups. The 3D deviation at the entry point was significantly higher in the IIO group than in the IEO (p < .05) and DEL (p < .01) groups. The 3D deviation at the apical point was significantly higher in the IIO group than in the IEO (p < .01) and DEL (p < .01) groups. The depth deviation was significantly higher in the IIO group than in the IEO (p < .05) and DEL (p < .05) groups. There was no statistical difference between the IEO and DEL group in angular and 3D deviation.

CONCLUSION

With surgical guides, among the different approaches for implant placement, delayed implant placement remains the most accurate approach for patients treated with mandibular reconstruction.

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.

Modeling Methods in Craniofacial Virtual Surgical Planning

Despite the widespread use of virtual surgical planning (VSP), few papers describe the modeling methods used to generate the digital simulations that underpin VSP. This paper aims to review the modeling methods that are currently available for use in VSP and the implications of their use in clinical practice. A literature review was undertaken of the two broad categories of modeling techniques; contour-based planning-namely mirroring from the contralateral side, templating from a normative database, and extrapolation from surrounding landmarks-and occlusal-based planning (OBP). The indications for each modeling method were discussed, including mandibular/maxillary reconstruction, pediatric craniofacial surgery, and orthognathic, as well as the limitations to the accuracy of modeling types. Unilateral defects of the upper/midface, wherein contour accuracy is paramount, are best reconstructed using mirroring methods, whereas bilateral defects-or cases with asymmetry due to craniofacial dysmorphology-are most suited to normative-data-based methods. Cases involving resection of the alveolar margin, in which functional occlusion is the primary outcome are best managed with OBP. Similarly, orthognathic surgery typically uses OBP, although complex cases involving asymmetry, such as clefts, may benefit from a combination of OBP and normative data methods. The choice of modeling methods is, therefore, largely driven by the defect type and the goals of reconstruction.

Application of a vascularized bone free flap and survival rate of dental implants after transplantation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

As maxillofacial surgical techniques have advanced, vascularized bone free flap transplantation has become the standard treatment for repairing maxillofacial defects. In this meta-analysis, we summarize the survival rates of implants after VBFF surgery for maxillary and mandibular reconstructions and investigate the factors affecting patient outcomes.

METHODS

The PubMed, Embase, and Wanfang databases were searched up to May 31, 2022. The results of the treatment effect are presented as the risk ratio or odds ratio, using 95% confidence intervals. Statistical significance was calculated at α = 0.05 (two-tailed z tests).

RESULTS

35 studies were included in our analysis. The results revealed a 3-year and 5-year implant survival rate of 95.2% and 85.4% in VBFFs, respectively. The location of jaw defects (maxilla or mandible) or timing of implantation was not found to have a statistically significant influence on the survival rate. However, statistically significant differences were observed in the failure of implants placed in irradiated bone tissue.

CONCLUSIONS

Statistically significant differences were not found in the implant survival rate between simultaneous and delayed implantation, or between maxillary and mandibular defects. However, dental implants placed in irradiated flaps tended to have a lower survival rate than those surgically placed in non-irradiated flaps.

The Modified Alberta Reconstructive Technique: A prospective cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Jaw defect reconstructions have been transformed by the development of free tissue transfer using vascularized bone incorporating osseointegrated dental implants. We recently developed a modification our method this procedure and termed it the Modified Alberta Reconstruction Technique (MART). The objective of this study aimed to assess the soft tissue component and outcomes of the MART as compared to the Alberta Reconstructive Technique (ART) or conventional (BDD) reconstructions.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was a prospective cohort study of adult patients who underwent jaw reconstruction with dental implant rehabilitation between 2000 and 2019 in Edmonton, Alberta. Patients were aged-matched and placed into a cohort based on the type of reconstruction they received. Outcomes were compared between the groups. Expert and aesthetic analyses were performed. Statistical analysis was conducted to determine significance.

RESULTS

A total of 46 patients (15 BDD, 15 ART and 16 MART) were included. Demographics were similar between groups. There was no difference in complications. The soft tissue component of the MART cohort was more favourable to work with as judged by the occlusal reconstructive experts. The MART was rated as more aesthetically appealing in comparison to the BDD and ART (p = 0.049).

CONCLUSIONS

The MART is a safe, effective, and aesthetically appealing procedure. It yields a good functional result and a clinically better soft tissue component for occlusal reconstructions. For a select group of patients requiring jaw reconstruction, the MART is an ideal reconstructive option as the modification provides good control of the soft tissue around the implants.

Outcomes of osseointegrated implants in patients with benign and malignant pathologies of the head and neck: a 10-year single-centre study

The surgical management of head and neck pathologies involving the maxilla and mandible results in significant functional and aesthetic deficits, and ultimately reduced quality of life. Composite free flaps used for reconstruction address many of these deficits and create a foundation for the use of osseointegrated implants to support prosthetic replacement of the dentition. There are few comparative studies examining outcomes of implants in native and reconstructed bone in head and neck cancer patients. The aim of this retrospective cohort study was to compare survival rates and the effects of risk factors between implants placed in native and reconstructed bone. The Kaplan-Meier method estimated cumulative 1- and 5-year implant survival rates of 99.5% and 95% for native bone and 96% and 88% for reconstructed bone. Multivariate Cox regression found an increased risk of implant failure in reconstructed bone (hazard ratio (HR) 9.9, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.4-29.7, P<0.001). Subgroup analysis of the cohorts found an increased risk of failure in the reconstructed group associated with radiotherapy (HR 6.4, 95% CI 1.8-22.3, P=0.004), current smoking (HR 23.2, 95% CI 2.7-198.6, P=0.004), and previous smoking (HR 9.0, 95% CI 1.1-71.9, P=0.038). There was no effect in the native bone group. Implants placed into reconstructed bone had higher rates of failure, and smoking status and radiotherapy increased the risk of implant failure.

Soft Tissue Management: A Critical Part of Implant Rehabilitation After Vascularized Free-Flap Reconstruction

PURPOSE

Implant rehabilitation after jaw reconstruction is challenging, and postoperative peri-implantitis is common. Our aim was to present our management protocol for implant rehabilitation after vascularized free-flap reconstruction and report the outcomes of soft tissue management.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included patients who received vascularized free-flap reconstruction, implant rehabilitation, apical reposition flaps (ARFs), and free gingival grafts (FGGs) at Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology from January 1, 2009 to January 1, 2020. We assessed the association of age, gender, primary disease, flap choice, number and position of implants, timing of ARFs and FGGs, fixation stent use, and restoration type with the occurrence of peri-implantitis. Probing pocket depth, bleeding on probing, and marginal bone loss of the implants were measured as well. The data were analyzed by descriptive statistics, Kaplan-Meier statistics, and Cox regression analysis.

RESULTS

In total, 19 patients with 65 implants were included. The implants were placed immediately or 7 to 44 months after reconstruction of the jaw with fibular (n = 17) or iliac flaps (n = 2). ARFs and FGGs were performed 0 to 11 months later. No implants were lost. The mean probing pocket depth, bleeding on probing, and marginal bone loss at 26.6 ± 16.8 months were 3.5 ± 0.9 mm, 70.4 ± 35.1%, and 0.6 ± 0.4 mm, respectively. The incidence of peri-implantitis was 32.3%, showing no significant associations with the gender, age, primary disease, flap choice, number and position of implants, timing of ARFs and FGGs, use of a fixation stent, and type of restoration based on the adjusted multivariate model (P > .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Soft tissue management helps generate firmly attached keratinized mucosa around the implants, leads to a more precise impression, and reduces peri-implant bone loss. It should be considered as a critical part of implant rehabilitation after vascularized free-flap reconstruction.

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.

Oral Rehabilitation of Patients Sustaining Orofacial Injuries: The UPenn Initiative

Tissue injuries in the oral and maxillofacial structures secondary to trauma, warfare, ablative cancer, and benign tumor surgery result in significant losses of speech, masticatory and swallowing functions, aesthetic deformities, and overall psychological stressors and compromise. Optimal oral rehabilitation remains a formidable challenge and an unmet clinical need due to the influence of multiple factors related to the physiologic limitations of tissue repair, the lack of site and function-specific donor tissues and constructs, and an integrated team of multidisciplinary professionals. The advancements in stem cell biology, biomaterial science, and tissue engineering technologies, particularly the 3-dimensional bioprinting technology, together with digital imaging and computer-aided design and manufacturing technologies, have paved the path for personalized/precision regenerative medicine. At the University of Pennsylvania, we have launched the initiative to integrate multidisciplinary health professionals and translational/clinical scientists in medicine, dentistry, stem cell biology, tissue engineering, and regenerative medicine to develop a comprehensive, patient-centered approach for precision and personalized reconstruction, as well as oral rehabilitation of patients sustaining orofacial tissue injuries and defects, especially oral cancer patients.

Impairments in Food Oral Processing in Patients Treated for Tongue Cancer

Patients surgically treated for oral cancer are affected by several underestimated deglutition disorders risk factors. This study aims to characterize the level of these food oral processing (FOP) impairments in a group of patients treated by surgery for tongue cancer. Twenty-seven consecutive patients surgically treated for tongue cancer were evaluated concerning their chewing capacity (Mastication-test), and responded to questions concerning their capacity to bite, chew and manipulate food with their tongue, and their quality of life. According to the Mastication-test, 16 patients suffered total FOP incapacities (TI group), characterized by high tumor stage, invasive carcinological surgery and necessity of reconstructive surgery; 12 patients were partially or not impaired (PI/NI-group). Tongue movement score and number of dental units were lower in the TI group than in the PI/NI-group. Subjective FOP criteria were clearly impaired in the TI group and correlated with a poor oral health-related quality of life. One year after surgery, there is a decrease in BMI for TI group patients while the PI group patients had a significant increase in BMI. All patients surgically treated for oral cancer suffered FOP impairments, but not with the same severity. Totally impaired subjects are at higher risk from long-term malnutrition. Functional evaluation of FOP should form part of the post-operative follow-up for all patients suffering from tongue cancer, using a quick combined evaluation of chewing efficiency, oral health quality of life and nutritional status.

Anchorage possibilities in case of a unilateral maxillary defect using the concept of Strategic Implant®

The aim of this article was to present the treatment method applied to a patient who suffered from a multiple fracture of the right maxilla, as a result of an accident that happened to him at an early age. The main consequence of this injury was an inhibited growth of the maxillary bone segment due to the lack of functional stimulus. The treatment consisted of four phases: the removal of all the teeth in the upper right maxilla, the immediate restoration with bicortical implants, the immediate prosthetic rehabilitation, and closing the oroantral communication.

Optimal number of implants for complete-arch implant-supported prostheses with a follow-up of at least 5 years: A systematic review and meta-analysis

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Consensus is lacking regarding the optimal number of implants for supporting complete-arch prostheses with good survival rates and lower prosthetic complications and marginal bone loss.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the influence of the number of implants used for complete-arch prostheses with at least 5 years of follow-up.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A search was performed in the PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) criteria and was registered in The International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42016048468). The following was the population, intervention, comparison, outcome (PICO) question: Does the number of implants influence the longevity of complete-arch prostheses?

RESULTS

Nineteen studies including 1006 patients with a mean age of 61.44 years were selected for evaluation. The number of implants per jaw ranged between 2 and 9 in the maxilla, mandible, or both jaws. For implant survival rate in complete-arch prostheses with fewer than 5 implants per jaw, the pooled weighted event rate was 1.4% (I²=25.26%; P=.211) and 4.2% (I²=81.35%; P<.001) for complete arches with more than 4 implants per jaw. For the prosthesis survival rate, the pooled weighted event rate for a complete-arch with fewer than 5 implants per jaw was 1.5% (I²=0%; P=.677) and 9% (I²=17.33%; P=.304) for complete arches with more than 4 implants per jaw. For prosthesis complications for complete arches with fewer than 5 implants per jaw, the pooled weighted event rate was 19.9% (I²=93.5%; P<.001) and 24.5% (I²=88.89; P<.001) for complete arches with more than 4 implants per jaw. The mean marginal bone loss for complete arches with fewer than 5 implants per jaw was 1.22 ±0.49 mm (I²=99.46; P<.001) and 1.46 ±0.46 mm (I²=99.6; P <.001) for more than 4 implants per jaw.

CONCLUSIONS

The current systematic review indicated no relationship of the number of implants used to support a complete-arch prosthesis with implant survival rate, prosthesis survival rate, prosthesis complications, or marginal bone loss in studies with follow-up periods of between 5 and 15 years.