Literature DB >> 26868226

Evaluation of Clinical Outcomes of Osseointegrated Dental Implantation of Fibula Free Flaps for Mandibular Reconstruction.

Ryan S Jackson1, Daniel L Price2, Kevin Arce3, Eric J Moore2.   

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: Dental implantation has been used for oral rehabilitation to improve cosmesis and function.
OBJECTIVE: We aim to evaluate the clinical outcomes and success rates of primary and secondary dental implant placement in vascularized fibula bone grafts used for segmental mandibulectomy defects. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective review was performed between November 2005 and July 2014 on all patients undergoing both fibula free tissue reconstruction of mandibular defects and endosseous dental implantation at an academic tertiary care referral hospital.
INTERVENTIONS: Either primary (n = 20) or secondary (n = 26) dental implantation of the fibula was performed. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Timing of implantation, location of implants, history of tobacco, alcohol, and radiation, reason for mandibulectomy, and outcomes related to these parameters.
RESULTS: Forty-six patients (31 males, 15 females; mean age, 58.0 years) underwent dental implantation to the fibula graft. A total of 227 implants were placed, with a mean of 5 implants per patient (range, 2-7). Of these, 44 were placed into native mandible and 183 into fibula flap. Twenty patients underwent primary implantation and received 96 implants, while 26 patients underwent secondary implantation and received 131 implants. There were no flap failures and 22 implant-related complications in 16 patients (implant failure, n = 10; granulation or soft-tissue overgrowth, n = 6; exposed bone around implant, n = 6). An implant failure occurred in 10 patients (22%) resulting in removal of 15 implants. Nine of these patients underwent successful dental rehabilitation, 5 without further implantation, and 4 with replaced implants. One patient was not rehabilitated secondary to failed implantation. Therefore, there was a 93% overall implant survival rate (n = 212) and 98% overall implant-supported prosthesis success rate (n = 45) at a mean follow-up of 22 months. There was no difference in implant survival between primary (94%) (n = 90) and secondary (93%) (n = 122) implantation. Neither a history of preimplant or postimplant radiation exposure nor the diagnosis of osteoradionecrosis affected implant survival. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Osseointegrated dental implantation is a relatively safe procedure with few complications. Vascularized fibula grafts are a suitable method of mandibular reconstruction and are amenable to successful primary and secondary endosseous implantation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26868226     DOI: 10.1001/jamafacial.2015.2271

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA Facial Plast Surg        ISSN: 2168-6076            Impact factor:   4.611


  10 in total

1.  Oral rehabilitation for patients with marginal and segmental mandibulectomy: A retrospective review of 111 mandibular resection prostheses.

Authors:  Ivana Petrovic; Zain Uddin Ahmed; Joseph M Huryn; Jonas Nelson; Robert J Allen; Evan Matros; Evan B Rosen
Journal:  J Prosthet Dent       Date:  2019-02-16       Impact factor: 3.426

Review 2.  Oral rehabilitation of the cancer patient: A formidable challenge.

Authors:  Ivana Petrovic; Evan B Rosen; Evan Matros; Joseph M Huryn; Jatin P Shah
Journal:  J Surg Oncol       Date:  2018-05-03       Impact factor: 3.454

3.  Prognostic factors associated with achieving total oral diet following osteocutaneous microvascular free tissue transfer reconstruction of the oral cavity.

Authors:  Sagar Kansara; Tao Wang; Sina Koochakzadeh; Nelson E Liou; Evan M Graboyes; Judith M Skoner; Joshua D Hornig; Vlad C Sandulache; Terry A Day; Andrew T Huang
Journal:  Oral Oncol       Date:  2019-09-12       Impact factor: 5.337

4.  Primary vs Secondary Endosseous Implantation After Fibular Free Tissue Reconstruction of the Mandible for Osteoradionecrosis.

Authors:  Deanna C Menapace; Kathryn M Van Abel; Ryan S Jackson; Eric J Moore
Journal:  JAMA Facial Plast Surg       Date:  2018-09-01       Impact factor: 4.611

5.  Short-Term Outcomes following Virtual Surgery-Assisted Immediate Dental Implant Placement in Free Fibula Flaps for Oncologic Mandibular Reconstruction.

Authors:  Robert J Allen; Jonas A Nelson; Thais O Polanco; Meghana G Shamsunder; Ian Ganly; Jay Boyle; Evan Rosen; Evan Matros
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2020-12       Impact factor: 5.169

6.  Oral rehabilitation following fasciocutaneous free-flap reconstruction: A retrospective study.

Authors:  Zain Uddin Ahmed; Joseph M Huryn; Ivana Petrovic; Evan B Rosen
Journal:  J Indian Prosthodont Soc       Date:  2019 Jul-Sep

Review 7.  What Is the Success of Implants Placed in Fibula Flap? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Pooja Gangwani; Mohammed Almana; Basir Barmak; Antonia Kolokythas
Journal:  J Oral Maxillofac Res       Date:  2022-03-31

Review 8.  Bone Augmentation for Implant Placement: Recent Advances.

Authors:  Van Viet Dam; Hai Anh Trinh; Dinesh Rokaya; Dinh Hai Trinh
Journal:  Int J Dent       Date:  2022-03-27

9.  Delayed Reconstruction of Palatomaxillary Defect Using Fibula Free Flap.

Authors:  Soo-Hwan Byun; Ho-Kyung Lim; Byoung-Eun Yang; Soung-Min Kim; Jong-Ho Lee
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2020-03-24       Impact factor: 4.241

Review 10.  What is the optimal timing for implant placement in oral cancer patients? A scoping literature review.

Authors:  Jamie M Alberga; Nathalie Vosselman; Anke Korfage; Konstantina Delli; Max J H Witjes; Gerry M Raghoebar; Arjan Vissink
Journal:  Oral Dis       Date:  2020-03-19       Impact factor: 3.511

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.