Literature DB >> 21435159

Prosthetic rehabilitation, implant survival and quality of life 2 to 5 years after resection of oral tumors.

Joannis Katsoulis1, Janine Fierz2, Takeyuki IIzuka3, Regina Mericske-Stern4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: After oral tumor resection, structural and functional rehabilitation by means of dental prostheses is complex, and positive treatment outcome is not always predictable.
PURPOSE: The objective of the study was to report on oral rehabilitation and quality of life 2-5 years after resection of malignant oral tumors.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data of 46 patients (57 ± 7 years) who underwent oral tumor surgery were available. More than 50% of tumors were classified T3 or T4. Open oro-nasal defects resulted in 12 patients and full mandibulary block resections in 23 patients. Comprehensive planning, implant placement, and prosthetic rehabilitation followed an interdisciplinary protocol. Analysis comprised tumor location, type of prostheses, implant survival, and quality of life.
RESULTS: Because of advanced tumor status, resections resulted in marked alteration of the oral anatomy requiring complex treatment procedures. Prosthetic rehabilitation comprised fixed and removable prostheses, with 104 implants placed in 28 patients (60%). Early implant loss was high (13%) and cumulative survival rate of loaded implants was <90% after 5 years. Prosthetic plans had to be modified because of side effects of tumor therapy, complications with implants and tumor recurrence. The majority of patients rated quality of life favorable, but some experienced impaired swallowing, dry mouth, limited mouth opening, appearance, and soreness.
CONCLUSIONS: Some local effects of tumor therapy could not be significantly improved by prosthetic rehabilitation leading to functional and emotional disability. Many patients had passed away or felt too ill to fill the questionnaires. This case series confirms the complex anatomic alterations after tumor resection and the need for individual treatment approaches especially regarding prosthesis design. In spite of disease-related local and general restrictions, most patients gave a positive assessment of quality of life.
© 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21435159     DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2010.00328.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Implant Dent Relat Res        ISSN: 1523-0899            Impact factor:   4.259


  4 in total

Review 1.  Dental implants installed in irradiated jaws: a systematic review.

Authors:  L Chambrone; J Mandia; J A Shibli; G A Romito; M Abrahao
Journal:  J Dent Res       Date:  2013-10-24       Impact factor: 6.116

2.  Success of dental implants in patients with large bone defect and analysis of risk factors for implant failure: a non-randomized retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Takumi Hasegawa; Aki Sasaki; Izumi Saito; Satomi Arimoto; Nanae Yatagai; Yujiro Hiraoka; Daisuke Takeda; Yasumasa Kakei; Masaya Akashi
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2021-11-16       Impact factor: 3.573

Review 3.  Mechanical Factors Implicated in Zirconia Implant Fracture Placed within the Anterior Region-A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Lauryn Attard; Victoria Lee; Jennifer Le; Chloe Lowe; Vipra Singh; Jacky Zhao; Dileep Sharma
Journal:  Dent J (Basel)       Date:  2022-02-02

4.  Implant survival in patients with oral cancer: A 5-year follow-up.

Authors:  Rafael Flores-Ruiz; Lizett Castellanos-Cosano; María-Angeles Serrera-Figallo; Eloy Cano-Díaz; Daniel Torres-Lagares; José-Luis Gutiérrez-Pérez
Journal:  J Clin Exp Dent       Date:  2018-06-01
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.