PURPOSE: currently, head and neck irradiation is not considered an absolute contraindication for implant placement (1), especially due to the transition from conventional to conformal radiotherapy. However, there is a difference in the success rate of implant placement between irradiated and non-irradiated bones (5). Successful osseointegration is mainly affected by the total dose of radiation (6). The main purpose of this study was to minimize problems related to radiation dose by evaluating in advance the most suitable site for implant insertion on the basis of the mean absorbed dose. Additional aims were: to estimate the appropriate timing for implant insertion in irradiated bones, to analyze the difference in stability between maxilla and mandible, and to evaluate the success of implants with wrinkled microgeometry and increased layer of TiO(2). MATERIALS AND METHODS: five patients who had been irradiated for head and neck cancer using intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) were recruited for our study. Surgical procedures were performed following a pre-surgical evaluation of the correct insertion position of implant fixtures. The latter was based on a scrutiny of dose-volume histograms (DVH) developed by a team of experts in medical physics and radiotherapists after dentists had contoured the volumes of interest. Student's t test and Pearson's correlation test were used for comparison and correlation between the variables considered. RESULTS: the percentage of osseointegration was 100%, which supports the usefulness of the adopted technique. A statistically significant difference in stability and crestal bone resorption emerged in the comparison between maxilla and mandible, but not between times of insertion. Moreover, there was a significant correlation between radiation dose and ISQ values: an increase in radiation dose corresponded to a decrease in primary stability. However, the correlation between ISQ values and implant length was not significant as well as that between primary stability and implant diameter. CONCLUSIONS: implantology guided by assessment of absorbed irradiation dose in the site to be rehabilitated can lead both to an increase in implant survival into irradiated tissue bone, and to a reduction in the incidence of ORN. However, both a larger sample size and the development of long-term prospective studies are necessary to validate the described method.
PURPOSE: currently, head and neck irradiation is not considered an absolute contraindication for implant placement (1), especially due to the transition from conventional to conformal radiotherapy. However, there is a difference in the success rate of implant placement between irradiated and non-irradiated bones (5). Successful osseointegration is mainly affected by the total dose of radiation (6). The main purpose of this study was to minimize problems related to radiation dose by evaluating in advance the most suitable site for implant insertion on the basis of the mean absorbed dose. Additional aims were: to estimate the appropriate timing for implant insertion in irradiated bones, to analyze the difference in stability between maxilla and mandible, and to evaluate the success of implants with wrinkled microgeometry and increased layer of TiO(2). MATERIALS AND METHODS: five patients who had been irradiated for head and neck cancer using intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) were recruited for our study. Surgical procedures were performed following a pre-surgical evaluation of the correct insertion position of implant fixtures. The latter was based on a scrutiny of dose-volume histograms (DVH) developed by a team of experts in medical physics and radiotherapists after dentists had contoured the volumes of interest. Student's t test and Pearson's correlation test were used for comparison and correlation between the variables considered. RESULTS: the percentage of osseointegration was 100%, which supports the usefulness of the adopted technique. A statistically significant difference in stability and crestal bone resorption emerged in the comparison between maxilla and mandible, but not between times of insertion. Moreover, there was a significant correlation between radiation dose and ISQ values: an increase in radiation dose corresponded to a decrease in primary stability. However, the correlation between ISQ values and implant length was not significant as well as that between primary stability and implant diameter. CONCLUSIONS: implantology guided by assessment of absorbed irradiation dose in the site to be rehabilitated can lead both to an increase in implant survival into irradiated tissue bone, and to a reduction in the incidence of ORN. However, both a larger sample size and the development of long-term prospective studies are necessary to validate the described method.
Authors: M Parliament; M Alidrisi; M Munroe; J Wolfaardt; R Scrimger; H Thompson; C Field; E Kurien; J Hanson Journal: Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 2.789
Authors: Merav A Ben-David; Maximiliano Diamante; Jeffrey D Radawski; Karen A Vineberg; Cynthia Stroup; Carol-Anne Murdoch-Kinch; Samuel R Zwetchkenbaum; Avraham Eisbruch Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-02-22 Impact factor: 7.038