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

Osteoradionecrosis in osseous free flaps after maxillofacial reconstruction: a single-center experience

Objective

In the multimodal treatment of advanced head and neck malignancies, primary free flap reconstruction in a one stage procedure with tumor resection is frequently combined with adjuvant radiotherapy. Radiotherapy is known to exhibit side effects on transplanted free flaps, including osteoradionecrosis (ORN) of native and transplanted bone. This study aims to evaluate the therapeutic outcomes and potential predictors of free flap ORN within osseous free flaps based on a large-scale, single-center database.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was conducted on patients who underwent osseous free flap reconstruction of maxilla or mandible in a one stage procedure followed by adjuvant radiotherapy due to an advanced head and neck malignancy between April 2017 and July 2023. After case matching, patients with and without free flap ORN were assessed for potential predictors using univariate and multivariate analysis.

Results

112 patients met the inclusion criteria. 21 patients (19%) developed ORN within the free flap. Following case matching, 42 patients (10 females, mean age 61.5 ± 9.1 years) were included in the final analysis. The mean time to ORN diagnosis was 19 (7-56) months after surgery. Total flap loss occurred in 7 patients (33%) following flap ORN. Smoking (76% vs. 38%; OR 5.78; p=0.03) and prior plate exposure (67% vs. 24%; OR 5.61; p=0.03) emerged as robust predictors of flap ORN in uni- and multivariate analysis.

Conclusion

Osseous free flap ORN is a severe radiooncologic complication, often resulting in total flap loss and subsequently increased morbidity. Smoking and prior plate exposure were identified as key predictors of flap ORN development. Individual risk assessment and careful evaluation of osseous free flap irradiation must be evaluated in future radiooncological concepts.

Oral health and rehabilitation in face transplant recipients - a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Facial transplantation (FT) provides advanced solutions for severe facial defects by incorporating complex tissues such as bone, skin, oral mucosa and nerves. Oral health plays a critical role in FT, impacting both functional outcomes and transplant prognosis. Despite its importance, literature on oral health in FT recipients remains sparse.

METHODS

This systematic review adhered to PRISMA guidelines. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and CENTRAL for studies on oral health in FT patients up to August 4, 2024. Eligible studies were evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and Level of Evidence (LOE). Data extracted included study design, general information on FT, patient demographics, oral examination techniques, and outcomes.

RESULTS

Out of 6,984 articles reviewed, 19 met the inclusion criteria, all consisting of case reports or case series involving 48 FT cases. Of these, 25 cases provided relevant oral health and rehabilitation data. All studies showed a LOE of IV, with an average NOS score of 4.3 ± 0.5. Most FT cases involved male recipients (n = 20, 80%), while the majority of FTs were conducted in the United States (n = 10, 40%) and France (n = 7, 28%). Oral mucosa biopsy was the most common examination method (n = 11, 44%). Malocclusion was reported in 48% (n = 12) of cases, with revision surgeries occurring in 36% (n = 9). Post-FT dental treatments included tooth extractions (n = 7, 28%), fillings (n = 3, 12%), and endodontic treatments (n = 2, 8%). Dental implants were placed in 32% (n = 8) of cases, with one case (4%) reporting failed osseointegration.

CONCLUSION

Routine oral health assessments are essential for FT patients to prevent complications and improve clinical outcomes. However, there is a lack of high-quality research on oral health in FT recipients, underscoring the need for further studies to establish standardized care protocols.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

This review emphasizes the urgent need for standardized oral health protocols in FT patients to minimize infection risks and optimize long-term transplant success and overall patient health.

Design and evaluation of a deep learning-based automatic segmentation of maxillary and mandibular substructures using a 3D U-Net

Background

Current segmentation approaches for radiation treatment planning in head and neck cancer patients (HNCP) typically consider the entire mandible as an organ at risk, whereas segmentation of the maxilla remains uncommon. Accurate risk assessment for osteoradionecrosis (ORN) or implant-based dental rehabilitation after radiation therapy may require a nuanced analysis of dose distribution in specific mandibular and maxillary segments. Manual segmentation is time-consuming and inconsistent, and there is no definition of jaw subsections.

Materials and methods

The mandible and maxilla were divided into 12 substructures. The model was developed from 82 computed tomography (CT) scans of HNCP and adopts an encoder-decoder three-dimensional (3D) U-Net structure. The efficiency and accuracy of the automated method were compared against manual segmentation on an additional set of 20 independent CT scans. The evaluation metrics used were the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), 95% Hausdorff distance (HD95), and surface DSC (sDSC).

Results

Automated segmentations were performed in a median of 86 s, compared to manual segmentations, which took a median of 53.5 min. The median DSC per substructure ranged from 0.81 to 0.91, and the median HD95 ranged from 1.61 to 4.22. The number of artifacts did not affect these scores. The maxillary substructures showed lower metrics than the mandibular substructures.

Conclusions

The jaw substructure segmentation demonstrated high accuracy, time efficiency, and promising results in CT scans with and without metal artifacts. This novel model could provide further investigation into dose relationships with ORN or dental implant failure in normal tissue complication prediction models.

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.

Long-Term Outcomes of Dental Rehabilitation and Quality of Life after Microvascular Alveolar Ridge Reconstruction in Patients with Head and Neck Cancer

Background/Objectives: Dental rehabilitation after extended tumour resection and jaw reconstruction is challenging. The present study aimed to report the prosthetic outcome and quality of life (QoL) in patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) after microvascular alveolar ridge reconstruction. Methods: The prosthetic outcomes of all consecutive patients with HNC who underwent microvascular alveolar ridge reconstruction at the University Hospital Salzburg between 2011 and 2018 were investigated. Oral health-related QoL (OHrQoL) and overall QoL were assessed using the validated Oral Health Impact Profile-49 (OHIP-49) and Short Form-36 questionnaires. Results: During the study period, 115 consecutive patients with head and neck cancer underwent microvascular jaw reconstruction. Among them, 23.3% and 27.4% received conventional tissue-borne prostheses and implant-supported prostheses, respectively, while 48.7% did not undergo dental rehabilitation. The prosthetic outcome was not associated with tumour stage (p = 0.32). Oral health-related quality of life (OHrQoL) was best in patients with implant-supported dental rehabilitation (OHIP-49 median score = 7) and worst in those with conventional removable dentures (OHIP-49 median score = 54). The corresponding OHIP-49 median score for patients who could not undergo dental rehabilitation was 30.5. All Short Form-36 subscale scores were equal to or higher than the malignancy norm scores. Conclusions: After microvascular jaw reconstruction, approximately one-third of the HNC patients received adequate implant-supported dental rehabilitation. However, the risk of dental rehabilitation failure was 50%. The different prosthetic outcomes affected OHrQoL, but not overall QoL.

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.

Peri-implant health after microvascular head and neck reconstruction-A retrospective analysis

INTRODUCTION

Prosthodontic rehabilitation after reconstruction with microvascular revascularized free flaps following ablative tumor surgery is challenging due to the altered anatomical and functional conditions. The aim of this retrospective study was to determine whether the type of graft and the type of peri-implant tissue have an effect on peri-implant inflammatory parameters and implant survival.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients who received a free flap reconstruction with subsequent implant-prosthetic rehabilitation between 2010 and 2022 were retrospectively included. The primary outcome variable was the probing depth (PPD) at a minimum of 1 year after completion of prosthetic restoration. Predictive variables were type of free flap, emergence profile, and history of radiation.

RESULTS

Seventy-one patients after free flap reconstruction were included in the analysis. At a minimum of 24 months after implant insertion the primary outcome, PPD showed no clinically relevant differences between the types of free flaps used. The emergence profile through a skin island resulted in an increase in BOP compared to native mucosa in the descriptive analysis (p-value > .05). The analysis showed a 5-year implant survival of 96.2% (95% CI: 0.929-0.996) in cases without irradiation and 87.6% (95% CI: 0.810-0.948) with irradiation of the region evaluated (p-value .034).

CONCLUSION

Flap and associated soft tissue type had no significant effect on 5-year implant survival or peri-implant inflammatory parameters. However, the large heterogeneity of the patient population indicates that further prolonged studies are required for a more differentiated assessment of the long-term success.

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.

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.

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 ).

Pilot investigation on the dose-dependent impact of irradiation on primary human alveolar osteoblasts in vitro

Radiotherapy of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma can lead to long-term complications like osteoradionecrosis, resulting in severe impairment of the jawbone. Current standard procedures require a 6-month wait after irradiation before dental reconstruction can begin. A comprehensive characterization of the irradiation-induced molecular and functional changes in bone cells could allow the development of novel strategies for an earlier successful dental reconstruction in patients treated by radiotherapy. The impact of ionizing radiation on the bone-forming alveolar osteoblasts remains however elusive, as previous studies have relied on animal-based models and fetal or animal-derived cell lines. This study presents the first in vitro data obtained from primary human alveolar osteoblasts. Primary human alveolar osteoblasts were isolated from healthy donors and expanded. After X-ray irradiation with 2, 6 and 10 Gy, cells were cultivated under osteogenic conditions and analyzed regarding their proliferation, mineralization, and expression of marker genes and proteins. Proliferation of osteoblasts decreased in a dose-dependent manner. While cells recovered from irradiation with 2 Gy, application of 6 and 10 Gy doses not only led to a permanent impairment of proliferation, but also resulted in altered cell morphology and a disturbed structure of the extracellular matrix as demonstrated by immunostaining of collagen I and fibronectin. Following irradiation with any of the examined doses, a decrease of marker gene expression levels was observed for most of the investigated genes, revealing interindividual differences. Primary human alveolar osteoblasts presented a considerably changed phenotype after irradiation, depending on the dose administered. Mechanisms for these findings need to be further investigated. This could facilitate improved patient care by re-evaluating current standard procedures and investigating faster and safer reconstruction concepts, thus improving quality of life and social integrity.

Postoperative oral dysfunction following oral cancer resection and reconstruction: A preliminary cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES

Oral cancer treatment reportedly causes decreased oral function, but few studies have examined the effects of oral cancer treatment on oral function in depth. This study aimed to comprehensively evaluate the oral function after treatment and classify the conditions related to oral dysfunction in patients with oral cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We recruited participants, collected their background data, and evaluated their oral function from September 2019 to March 2021. Principal component analysis was used to identify the components of oral function measurement and oral health perception. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was performed to investigate the accuracy of oral function measurements in predicting oral intake and nutritional status.

RESULTS

Fifty patients treated for oral cancer, including 33 (66.0%) males and 17 (34.0%) females, were included. Their median age was 71.0 years (interquartile range: 63.0-76.0). There were significant differences in oral dryness between males and females, occlusal force among different age groups, tongue pressure based on the tumor stage and performance of reconstructive procedures, and masticatory function and Eating Assessment Tool scores based on whether radiotherapy was performed (P < 0.05). The principal component analysis proposed that oral function measurements and subjective oral health perception could be divided into three main components (transport, oral hygiene, and occlusion type), which explain 61.5% of the variance of the phenomenon.

CONCLUSION

A significant decrease in oral function after oral cancer treatment should be diagnosed as postoperative oral dysfunction. Postoperative oral dysfunction can be classified into three types, each of which may present with different pathologies.

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.