Implant-supported oral rehabilitation in oncology patients: a retrospective cohort study

Long-Term Survival of Dental Implants in Irradiated Patients

The surgical ablation of head and neck cancer followed by radiotherapy often leads to unfavorable functional and aesthetic outcomes. Studies have demonstrated that these outcomes can significantly impact quality of life. Dental implants play a crucial role in rehabilitation by facilitating the use of suprastructures and obturators. However, the long-term survival of dental implants in patients who have undergone radiotherapy remains uncertain, raising several questions. These include determining the optimal timing for dental implantation (before or after radiotherapy), identifying the radiotherapy threshold for implant loss, and considering the role of hyperbaric oxygen therapy. These and other related concerns will be addressed in the following article.

The dose-dependent impact of γ-radiation reinforced with backscatter from titanium on primary human osteoblasts

In head and neck cancer patients receiving dental implants prior to radiotherapy, backscatter from titanium increases the radiation dose close to the surface, and may affect the osseointegration. The dose-dependent effects of ionizing radiation on human osteoblasts (hOBs) were investigated. The hOBs were seeded on machined titanium, moderately rough fluoride-modified titanium, and tissue culture polystyrene, and cultured in growth- or osteoblastic differentiation medium (DM). The hOBs were exposed to ionizing γ-irradiation in single doses of 2, 6 or 10 Gy. Twenty-one days post-irradiation, cell nuclei and collagen production were quantified. Cytotoxicity and indicators of differentiation were measured and compared to unirradiated controls. Radiation with backscatter from titanium significantly reduced the number of hOBs but increased the alkaline phosphatase activity in both types of medium when adjusted to the relative cell number on day 21. Irradiated hOBs on the TiF-surface produced similar amounts of collagen as unirradiated controls when cultured in DM. The majority of osteogenic biomarkers significantly increased on day 21 when the hOBs had been exposed to 10 Gy, while the opposite or no effect was observed after lower doses. High doses reinforced with backscatter from titanium resulted in smaller but seemingly more differentiated subpopulations of osteoblasts.

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.

Pathways for the rehabilitation of resection defects in the maxilla

Oral rehabilitation of head and neck cancer patients is an integral component of the care pathway. Maxillectomy procedures can cause significant defects, such as oronasal fistulas, loss of support for the cheek and lip, aesthetic defects in the middle third of the face and functional impairments. Orofacial rehabilitation plays a fundamental role in restoring aesthetics and functional capabilities, such as speech, mastication and deglutition.Rehabilitation of maxillectomy patients poses a challenge for both clinicians and patients. This paper utilises case examples to demonstrate the treatment options for the oral rehabilitation of these patients. We will summarise the treatment pathways for conventional obturators, delayed (secondary) implant retained fixed rehabilitation following composite free flap and early rehabilitation using a zygomatic implant perforated flap technique. This paper aims to highlight the challenges in treatment planning and the importance of a multidisciplinary approach in improving patient outcomes.

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.

Retrospective long-term clinical evaluation of implant-prosthetic rehabilitations after head and neck cancer therapy

OBJECTIVE

To assess clinical and patient-reported outcomes of implant-prosthetic rehabilitations in patients with a history of head-neck cancer (HNC), treated with tumor resection without (TR) or with adjuvant radiotherapy (TR/RT). A healthy cohort rehabilitated with the same reconstructive protocols served as control group (C).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 28 women and 29 men were considered in the present retrospective study. Participants received 322 implants, finally supporting 79 prosthetic reconstructions. Primary outcome was the assessment of implant and prosthetic survival rates. Furthermore peri-implant soft tissue parameters (attached peri-implant mucosa, AM; modified bleeding and plaque indices, mBI/mPI; probing depth, PD) and prosthetic technical complications were documented. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) by means of visual analog scales (VAS) and the Oral Health Impact Profile German 14 form (OHIP G14) were collected. For statistical purposes Chi-square and Mann-Whitney-U-Test were adapted.

RESULTS

After a mean follow-up of 81.2 ± 50.3 months, implant survival rate was 98.1% (HNC-TR), 98.2% (HNC-TR/RT) and 100.0% (C), respectively (four implants failed in the HNC groups). HNC-TR/RT showed significant higher mPI and mBI compared to C. Within HNC-TR/RT, vestibuloplasty significantly reduced mBI and PD values. No failures occurred at the prosthetic level. Overall, higher VAS scores were reported for bar- compared with Locator-retained prostheses. Furthermore, increased OHIP G14 values resulted for HNC-TR/RT.

CONCLUSIONS

High survival rates on implant and prosthetic level were observed. The use of soft tissue grafts resulted in stabilization of the peri-implant mucosa in irradiated patients. In terms of retention and chewing ability, participants preferred bars over Locator attachments.