Clinical long-term and patient-reported outcomes of dental implants in oral cancer patients

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.

Immediate versus delayed implant placement of novel fully tapered tissue-level implants - A retrospective multicenter clinical study

OBJECTIVES

To compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of novel fully tapered tissue-level implants in immediate implant placement (type 1) versus late implant placement (type 4) for the first time.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

For this clinical study, 318 fully tapered tissue-level implants in 65 patients were inserted immediately (n = 68 implants) or late (n = 250 implants) in two different centers. Implant survival and success rates and marginal bone levels were analyzed.

RESULTS

After a mean follow-up of 12.0 ± 5 months, implant survival rates were 97.8% for all implants. No statistically significant difference in implant survival rates between type 1 and type 4 could be detected (98.5% vs 97.6%, HR 0.70, 95%-CI 0.084-5.81). Neither for implant length (HR 0.53, 95%-CI 0.055-5.08) nor for implant width (HR 0.27, CI 0.028-2.55), a significant influence on implant survival could be detected. Type of used biomaterial for filling the gap and immediate loading showed no effect on implant survival. Mean marginal bone loss was 0.02 ± 0.05 mm for type 1 and 0.04 ± 0.1 for type 4.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limitations of this retrospective study and the short follow-up, the results demonstrated comparable high survival and success rates and stable marginal bone levels for type 1 and type 4 placement of this novel tissue-level implant (no clinical trial registration as retrospective study design).

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.

Dental rehabilitation in irradiated oral cancer patients using patient-specific dental implants - Clinical outcome and oral health-related quality of life

INTRODUCTION

Dental rehabilitation in oral cancer patients is essential for good oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL). Patient-specific dental implants are suitable for treating tumor-related bony defects, resulting in satisfactory OHRQoL. However, knowledge concerning the clinical outcome and OHRQoL following tumor irradiation is lacking.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis was carried out to evaluate clinical outcomes and OHRQoL in eight patients who received patient-specific dental implants and implant-supported dentures after surgical treatment for oral cancer with additional irradiation. OHRQoL assessment was performed using the German long version of the oral health impact profile (OHIP) questionnaire (OHIP-G53).

RESULTS

Clinical examination revealed successful dental rehabilitation in all the patients with only minor impairments. Restricted stability and function of implants were not observed. OHIP sum-scores of all the patients indicated acceptable OHRQoL, but this varied between patients treated in the upper or lower jaw. Single-item sum-scores concerning the adverse events "difficulty in chewing," "food catching," "sore jaw," "sore spots," and "unclear speech" were detected to be the worst, and pain-related OHIP dimensions demonstrated the highest scores (followed by functional limitation, physical disability, and psychosocial impact) with a worse OHRQoL following lower jaw treatment. Other dimension sum-scores were overall lower and nearly equally distributed in patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Dental rehabilitation of irradiated oral cancer patients using patient-specific dental implants may be suitable, leading to acceptable OHRQoL. However, implant insertion in the upper jaw seems to be more favorable. Further studies on patient-specific dental implants are warranted to validate the current results.

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.

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.

How does dental implant macrogeometry affect primary implant stability? A narrative review

PURPOSE

The macrogeometry of a dental implant plays a decisive role in its primary stability. A larger diameter, a conical shape, and a roughened surface increase the contact area of the implant with the surrounding bone and thus improve primary stability. This is considered the basis for successful implant osseointegration that different factors, such as implant design, can influence. This narrative review aims to critically review macro-geometric features affecting the primary stability of dental implants.

METHODS

For this review, a comprehensive literature search and review of relevant studies was conducted based on formulating a research question, searching the literature using keywords and electronic databases such as PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library to search for relevant studies. These studies were screened and selected, the study quality was assessed, data were extracted, the results were summarized, and conclusions were drawn.

RESULTS

The macrogeometry of a dental implant includes its surface characteristics, size, and shape, all of which play a critical role in its primary stability. At the time of placement, the initial stability of an implant is determined by its contact area with the surrounding bone. Larger diameter and a conical shape of an implant result in a larger contact area and better primary stability. But the linear relationship between implant length and primary stability ends at 12 mm.

CONCLUSIONS

Several factors must be considered when choosing the ideal implant geometry, including local factors such as the condition of the bone and soft tissues at the implant site and systemic and patient-specific factors such as osteoporosis, diabetes, or autoimmune diseases. These factors can affect the success of the implant procedure and the long-term stability of an implant. By considering these factors, the surgeon can ensure the greatest possible therapeutic success and minimize the risk of implant failure.

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.

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.

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 ).

Osseointegration of a New, Ultrahydrophilic and Nanostructured Dental Implant Surface: A Comparative In Vivo Study

This study compared the osseointegration of acid-etched, ultrahydrophilic, micro- and nanostructured implant surfaces (ANU) with non-ultra-hydrophilic, microstructured (SA) and non-ultrahydrophilic, micro- and nanostructured implant surfaces (AN) in vivo. Fifty-four implants (n = 18 per group) were bilaterally inserted into the proximal tibia of New Zealand rabbits (n = 27). After 1, 2, and 4 weeks, bone-implant contact (BIC, %) in the cortical (cBIC) and spongious bone (sBIC), bone chamber ingrowth (BChI, %), and the supra-crestal, subperiosteal amount of newly formed bone, called percentage of linear bone fill (PLF, %), were analyzed. After one week, cBIC was significantly higher for AN and ANU when compared to SA (p = 0.01 and p = 0.005). PLF was significantly increased for ANU when compared to AN and SA (p = 0.022 and p = 0.025). After 2 weeks, cBIC was significantly higher in SA when compared to AN (p = 0.039) and after 4 weeks, no significant differences in any of the measured parameters were found anymore. Ultrahydrophilic implants initially improved osseointegration when compared to their non-ultrahydrophilic counterparts. In accordance, ultrahydrophilic implants might be appropriate in cases with a necessity for an accelerated and improved osseointegration, such as in critical size alveolar defects or an affected bone turnover.