Survival of Dental Implants in Oncology Patients versus Non-Oncology Patients: A 5-Year Retrospective Study

Abstract

Patients with a history of cancer are increasingly common in the dental office. Treating cancer patients requires a multidisciplinary team, which should include the dentist, in order to control the complications that occur in the oral cavity and also to recover the patient undergoing treatment in any of its types: surgical, medical, radiotherapeutic, or its possible combinations. Dental implants can be a safe and predictable treatment option for prosthetic rehabilitation. The aim of this paper is to describe in retrospect the success rate of osseointegrated implants in oncology and non-oncology patients placed by the Master of Dentistry in Oncology and Immunocompromised Patients, as well as the Master of Medicine, Surgery and Oral Implantology of the University of Barcelona Dental Hospital, between July 2011 and March 2016. 466 patients were reviewed, with a total of 1405 implants placed, considering the oncological history of the patients and the implant success rate. The total success rate in the concerned period was 96.65%. When comparing cancer patients with healthy ones, the success rate has been 93.02% in the first case, and 97.16% in the latter. According to the literature review, our results encourage implant placement in cancer patients, it is important to recognize that this is an analysis of a complex care pathway with a large number of confounding variables. However, the findings should not be considered as generalizable.

Clinical long-term and patient-reported outcomes of dental implants in oral cancer patients

“…Overall, implant placement in oncology patients is a predictable procedure. A recent review of the literature showed a 97.16% success rate in healthy patients vs. a success rate of 93.02% in oncological patients [ 26 ]. Although, a large number of confounding parameters should be considered.…”

Marginal Mandibulectomy and Oral Rehabilitation of Xeroderma Pigmentosum Patient

“…The esthetic and functional sequelae of this treatment approach, particularly in advanced-stage patients, impact the ability to speak, chew, and swallow and create a negative esthetic impact on the patient’s external appearance, leading to a decline in the quality of life 4,5. The functional and esthetic rehabilitation of patients undergoing extensive resections constitutes 1 of the biggest challenges for the multidisciplinary team due to its extreme difficulty 6. The conventional removable prosthesis used over a significant defect will experience deficiencies in bone associated with inadequate soft tissue.…”

“…4,5 The functional and esthetic rehabilitation of patients undergoing extensive resections constitutes 1 of the biggest challenges for the multidisciplinary team due to its extreme difficulty. 6 The conventional removable prosthesis used over a significant defect will experience deficiencies in bone associated with inadequate soft tissue. Moreover, the loss of occlusion vertical dimension impacts the masticatory function, phonetics, dental esthetics, and facial appearance.…”

“…Moreover, the loss of occlusion vertical dimension impacts the masticatory function, phonetics, dental esthetics, and facial appearance. Osseointegrated dental implants have been proposed as an alternative to rehabilitate patients after partial mandibulectomy 6–9. Considering the importance of oral rehabilitation in the patient with XP who underwent marginal mandibulectomy and the restoration of oral function and facial esthetics, this study aims to present a clinical report of an overdenture prosthesis manufacturing using reverse planning.…”

Oral Rehabilitation of Marginal Maxillectomy Patient After Local Flap Reconstruction

“…5 Providing oral and esthetic rehabilitation for patients undergoing extensive resections is crucial but represents the most significant challenge. 6,7 The surgical defect, comorbidity, patient preference, and the multidisciplinary team determine the rehabilitation method used in patients undergoing maxillectomy. 3,4 Surgical reconstruction using local flaps, (osteo)fasciocutaneous free flaps, or (osteo)myocutaneous free flaps, followed mainly by implant surgery 4 or the utilization of an obturator prosthesis, with or without implant support, 8 are among the options for rehabilitation.…”