Vinay V Kumar1, P C Jacob2, Supriya Ebenezer3, Moni A Kuriakose4, Vikram Kekatpure5, Amresh S Baliarsing6, Bilal Al-Nawas7, Wilfried Wagner8. 1. Head and Neck Institute, Mazumdar Shaw Cancer Center, Narayana Health, Bommasandra, Bangalore, India; Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery-Plastic Surgery, University Medical Center of Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany. Electronic address: veezo@rediffmail.com. 2. Head and Neck Institute, Mazumdar Shaw Cancer Center, Narayana Health, Bommasandra, Bangalore, India. Electronic address: pcjacob66@gmail.com. 3. Department of Periodontics, M. R. Ambedkar Dental College & Hospital, Bangalore, India. Electronic address: supriyaebenezer@gmail.com. 4. Head and Neck Institute, Mazumdar Shaw Cancer Center, Narayana Health, Bommasandra, Bangalore, India. Electronic address: makuriakose@gmail.com. 5. Head and Neck Institute, Mazumdar Shaw Cancer Center, Narayana Health, Bommasandra, Bangalore, India. Electronic address: kvikram2000@gmail.com. 6. Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (Head: Prof. Dr. A. S. Baliarsing), BYL Nair Charitable Hospital and Topiwala National Medical College, Mumbai, India. Electronic address: amresh_baliarsing@hotmail.com. 7. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery-Plastic Surgery, University Medical Center of Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany. Electronic address: Al-Nawas@uni-mainz.de. 8. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery-Plastic Surgery, University Medical Center of Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany. Electronic address: wilfried.wagner@unimedizin-mainz.de.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The primary objective of this study was to assess the difference in quality of life (QoL) in patients with dental rehabilitation using two or fourimplant-supported overdentures following segmental mandibulectomy defect reconstruction with fibula free flap. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This prospective, parallel designed, randomized clinical study was conducted with a 1:1 ratio. At baseline, all participants already had fibula flap reconstruction for segmental defects of the mandible and rehabilitation with conventional (non-implant supported) removable partial dentures. The participants were then randomized into two groups. Group I received implant supported overdentures on two implants, and Group II received four implants. QoL outcomes were evaluated using standardized questionnaires (EORTC_QLQ c30, H&N35, OHIP, DSI). Outcomes of treatment were evaluated at 6 months (T1) and 1 year (T2) following rehabilitation. RESULTS:A total of 52 patients were randomized into two treatment groups (26 each). After accounting for the loss to lack of follow-up, 22 patients in Group I and 24 patients in Group II were evaluated for QoL at the end of the study. There was a significant improvement in QoL with implant-assisted dental rehabilitation. However there were no significant differences in QoL between the two-implant and four-implant groups. CONCLUSION:Implant-supported removable overdentures improve QoL outcomes in patients with reconstructed mandibles. This study showed no significant difference in QoL outcomes in patients with two- or four-implant supported removable prostheses.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: The primary objective of this study was to assess the difference in quality of life (QoL) in patients with dental rehabilitation using two or four implant-supported overdentures following segmental mandibulectomy defect reconstruction with fibula free flap. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This prospective, parallel designed, randomized clinical study was conducted with a 1:1 ratio. At baseline, all participants already had fibula flap reconstruction for segmental defects of the mandible and rehabilitation with conventional (non-implant supported) removable partial dentures. The participants were then randomized into two groups. Group I received implant supported overdentures on two implants, and Group II received four implants. QoL outcomes were evaluated using standardized questionnaires (EORTC_QLQ c30, H&N35, OHIP, DSI). Outcomes of treatment were evaluated at 6 months (T1) and 1 year (T2) following rehabilitation. RESULTS: A total of 52 patients were randomized into two treatment groups (26 each). After accounting for the loss to lack of follow-up, 22 patients in Group I and 24 patients in Group II were evaluated for QoL at the end of the study. There was a significant improvement in QoL with implant-assisted dental rehabilitation. However there were no significant differences in QoL between the two-implant and four-implant groups. CONCLUSION: Implant-supported removable overdentures improve QoL outcomes in patients with reconstructed mandibles. This study showed no significant difference in QoL outcomes in patients with two- or four-implant supported removable prostheses.
Authors: Ivana Petrovic; Raymond Baser; Timothy Blackwell; Colleen McCarthy; Ian Ganly; Snehal Patel; Peter Cordeiro; Jatin Shah Journal: Head Neck Date: 2019-02-13 Impact factor: 3.147
Authors: Davide Sozzi; Andrea Filippi; Gabriele Canzi; Elena De Ponti; Alberto Bozzetti; Giorgio Novelli Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-04-06 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: Johannes N Lodders; Gustaaf J C van Baar; Marije R Vergeer; Femke Jansen; Engelbert A J M Schulten; Birgit I Lissenberg-Witte; Irma M Verdonck-de Leeuw; Tymour Forouzanfar; Frank K J Leusink Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2022-03-17 Impact factor: 3.359
Authors: Jose Luís Cebrián Carretero; José Luis Del Castillo Pardo de Vera; Néstor Montesdeoca García; Pablo Garrido Martínez; Marta María Pampín Martínez; Iñigo Aragón Niño; Ignacio Navarro Cuéllar; Carlos Navarro Cuéllar Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-08-06 Impact factor: 4.964