Tobias Ettl1, Natalie Junold2, Florian Zeman3, Matthias Hautmann4, Sebastian Hahnel5, Carola Kolbeck6, Steffen Müller2, Christoph Klingelhöffer2, Torsten E Reichert2, Johannes K Meier2. 1. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospital of Regensburg, Franz-Josef-Strauß-Allee 11, 93053, Regensburg, Germany. tobias.ettl@ukr.de. 2. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospital of Regensburg, Franz-Josef-Strauß-Allee 11, 93053, Regensburg, Germany. 3. Centre for Clinical Studies, University Hospital of Regensburg, Franz-Josef-Strauß-Allee 11, 93053, Regensburg, Germany. 4. Department of Radiotherapy, University Hospital of Regensburg, Franz-Josef-Strauß-Allee 11, 93053, Regensburg, Germany. 5. Department of Prosthodontics, University Hospital of Leipzig, Liebigstraße 12, 04103, Leipzig, Germany. 6. Department of Prosthodontics, University Hospital of Regensburg, Franz-Josef-Strauß-Allee 11, 93053, Regensburg, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Definition of implant success is unclear in prosthetic implant-based rehabilitation of head neck cancer patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-two patients with 309 inserted implants were included in this prospective observational study. Implant survival (in situ and loaded) and implant success (modified Albrektsson criteria) at 2-year follow-up were evaluated under the influence of patient- and implant-specific variables. RESULTS: Thirty-nine patients with 234 implants finished the study. Overall implant survival after 2 years was 92.3% (216/234) with an osseointegration rate of 94% (220/234). Implant success was 78.6% (184/234). Main reasons for failure were "bone resorption > 1.7mm" (n = 27, 11.5%) and "implant not in situ or not loaded" (n = 18, 7.7%). Smoking (OR 3.1, p = 0.034), bone grafts (OR 2.4, p = 0.021) and radiation dose > 60 Gy (OR 3.8, p = 0.025) revealed as significant predictors for implant failure. CONCLUSION: Implant survival differs significantly from implant success in head and neck cancer patients. Implant success is mainly determined by radiographic peri-implant bone resorption. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Dealing with head and neck cancer patients a higher amount of peri-implant bone resorption must be taken into account and warrants for intensified implant monitoring.
OBJECTIVES: Definition of implant success is unclear in prosthetic implant-based rehabilitation of head neck cancerpatients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-two patients with 309 inserted implants were included in this prospective observational study. Implant survival (in situ and loaded) and implant success (modified Albrektsson criteria) at 2-year follow-up were evaluated under the influence of patient- and implant-specific variables. RESULTS: Thirty-nine patients with 234 implants finished the study. Overall implant survival after 2 years was 92.3% (216/234) with an osseointegration rate of 94% (220/234). Implant success was 78.6% (184/234). Main reasons for failure were "bone resorption > 1.7mm" (n = 27, 11.5%) and "implant not in situ or not loaded" (n = 18, 7.7%). Smoking (OR 3.1, p = 0.034), bone grafts (OR 2.4, p = 0.021) and radiation dose > 60 Gy (OR 3.8, p = 0.025) revealed as significant predictors for implant failure. CONCLUSION: Implant survival differs significantly from implant success in head and neck cancerpatients. Implant success is mainly determined by radiographic peri-implant bone resorption. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Dealing with head and neck cancerpatients a higher amount of peri-implant bone resorption must be taken into account and warrants for intensified implant monitoring.
Entities:
Keywords:
Bone resorption; Head and neck cancer; Implants; Radiotherapy; Success; Survival