Karina Zierden1, Juliane Wöstmann2, Bernd Wöstmann3, Peter Rehmann3. 1. Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dental Medicine, Justus-Liebig-University, Schlangenzahl 14, 35392, Giessen, Germany. karina.zierden@dentist.med.uni-giessen.de. 2. Private Practice, Düsseldorf, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany. 3. Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dental Medicine, Justus-Liebig-University, Schlangenzahl 14, 35392, Giessen, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To investigate how different types of dental prosthesis perform in patients with head and neck tumors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective clinical cohort study, the impact of different patient-related factors was analyzed as influencing factors on the survival probability of dental prosthesis using Kaplan-Meier estimate. For analysis, the dental prosthesis was divided into groups: group 1 (fixed dental prosthesis), group 2 (removable dental prosthesis), group 3 (implant-supported dental prosthesis), and group 4 (prostheses anchored using wrought wire clasps and obturators). The incidental aftercare measures were also evaluated. RESULTS: Two hundred seventy-nine restorations were observed (mean observation: 2.7 ± 3.0 years, max.14.8 years) out of which 49 (17.6%) had to be replaced during the observation. After 5 years, 100% of group 1 restorations, 79.9% of group 2 restorations, 91.4% of group 3 restorations, and 30% of group 4 restorations were still functional. Four hundred eighty-eight dental implants were observed, of which 77 (15.8%) failed. CONCLUSIONS: Groups 1, 2, and 3 restorations showed good survival times after 5 years in function, whereas group 4 presented the worst survival times. Group 2 restorations showed the highest amount of necessary aftercare measures. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The current investigation shows that groups 1, 2, and 3 restorations should be preferred in the prosthetic treatment planning of patients with head and neck tumors. A treatment with group 4 restorations should only be considered if no other prosthetic treatment is possible or as temporary treatment.
OBJECTIVES: To investigate how different types of dental prosthesis perform in patients with head and neck tumors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective clinical cohort study, the impact of different patient-related factors was analyzed as influencing factors on the survival probability of dental prosthesis using Kaplan-Meier estimate. For analysis, the dental prosthesis was divided into groups: group 1 (fixed dental prosthesis), group 2 (removable dental prosthesis), group 3 (implant-supported dental prosthesis), and group 4 (prostheses anchored using wrought wire clasps and obturators). The incidental aftercare measures were also evaluated. RESULTS: Two hundred seventy-nine restorations were observed (mean observation: 2.7 ± 3.0 years, max.14.8 years) out of which 49 (17.6%) had to be replaced during the observation. After 5 years, 100% of group 1 restorations, 79.9% of group 2 restorations, 91.4% of group 3 restorations, and 30% of group 4 restorations were still functional. Four hundred eighty-eight dental implants were observed, of which 77 (15.8%) failed. CONCLUSIONS: Groups 1, 2, and 3 restorations showed good survival times after 5 years in function, whereas group 4 presented the worst survival times. Group 2 restorations showed the highest amount of necessary aftercare measures. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The current investigation shows that groups 1, 2, and 3 restorations should be preferred in the prosthetic treatment planning of patients with head and neck tumors. A treatment with group 4 restorations should only be considered if no other prosthetic treatment is possible or as temporary treatment.
Authors: Pedro Molinero-Mourelle; Alexandra Helm; Carlos Cobo-Vázquez; Walter Yh Lam; Luís Azevedo; Edmond Hn Pow; Miguel Gómez-Polo Journal: Int J Prosthodont Date: 2020 Jul/Aug Impact factor: 1.681
Authors: Oisín Bugter; Dirk L P van Iwaarden; Emilie A C Dronkers; Martine J de Herdt; Marjan H Wieringa; Gerda M Verduijn; Marc A M Mureau; Ivo Ten Hove; Esther van Meerten; José A Hardillo; Robert J Baatenburg de Jong Journal: Head Neck Date: 2019-01-16 Impact factor: 3.147
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