Jan-Willem G H Wetzels1,2, Gert J Meijer1, Ron Koole2, Eddy M Adang3, Matthias A W Merkx1, Caroline M Speksnijder1,2,4. 1. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 2. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Special Dental Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 3. Section Biostatistics, Department for Health Evidence, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 4. Julius Center Sciences, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare costs and clinical outcomes of two protocols for implant placement in edentulous oral cancer patients: implant placement during ablative surgery and postponed implant placement. MATERIAL AND METHODS: All edentulous patients who underwent curative tumor surgery between 2007 and 2009 at the Radboud university medical center (Radboudumc) and UMC Utrecht, both in the Netherlands, were included retrospectively. At the Radboudumc, 79 of 98 patients received implants during ablative surgery. At the UMC Utrecht, 18 of 95 patients received implants after a disease-free period of at least 6 months, because satisfying conventional dentures could not be made. Costs, implant details and clinical outcomes were recorded retrospectively up to 5 years after tumor surgery. RESULTS: Individual costs of implant placement were lower in the during-ablative-surgery protocol (€2235 vs. €4152), while implant failure and loading were comparable to the postponed-placement protocol. In the during-ablative-surgery protocol, more patients received implant-retained overdentures (62% vs. 17%) and more patients had functioning dentures (65% vs. 47%), which were placed at an earlier stage (291 vs. 389 days after surgery). Overall costs of the during-ablative-surgery protocol were higher, as more patients received implants and functioning implant-retained dentures, which were more expensive than conventional dentures. CONCLUSIONS: Placing implants during ablative surgery lowered the individual costs of implant placement and led to more patients with functioning dentures, while implant failure and loading were comparable to postponed placement.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare costs and clinical outcomes of two protocols for implant placement in edentulous oral cancerpatients: implant placement during ablative surgery and postponed implant placement. MATERIAL AND METHODS: All edentulouspatients who underwent curative tumor surgery between 2007 and 2009 at the Radboud university medical center (Radboudumc) and UMC Utrecht, both in the Netherlands, were included retrospectively. At the Radboudumc, 79 of 98 patients received implants during ablative surgery. At the UMC Utrecht, 18 of 95 patients received implants after a disease-free period of at least 6 months, because satisfying conventional dentures could not be made. Costs, implant details and clinical outcomes were recorded retrospectively up to 5 years after tumor surgery. RESULTS: Individual costs of implant placement were lower in the during-ablative-surgery protocol (€2235 vs. €4152), while implant failure and loading were comparable to the postponed-placement protocol. In the during-ablative-surgery protocol, more patients received implant-retained overdentures (62% vs. 17%) and more patients had functioning dentures (65% vs. 47%), which were placed at an earlier stage (291 vs. 389 days after surgery). Overall costs of the during-ablative-surgery protocol were higher, as more patients received implants and functioning implant-retained dentures, which were more expensive than conventional dentures. CONCLUSIONS: Placing implants during ablative surgery lowered the individual costs of implant placement and led to more patients with functioning dentures, while implant failure and loading were comparable to postponed placement.
Authors: Jamie M Alberga; Anke Korfage; Ilse Bonnema; Max J H Witjes; Arjan Vissink; Gerry M Raghoebar Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2020-04-11 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Doke J M Buurman; Caroline M Speksnijder; Britt H B T Engelen; Peter Kessler Journal: Clin Oral Implants Res Date: 2020-01-27 Impact factor: 5.977
Authors: Matthijs In 't Veld; Engelbert A J M Schulten; Frank K J Leusink Journal: Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2021-04-01 Impact factor: 1.814