Efficacy of conventional and implant-supported mandibular resection prostheses: Study overview and treatment outcomes

Garrett, Neal R.; Roumanas, Eleni; Blackwell, Keith E.; Freymiller, Earl; Abemayor, Elliot; Wong, Weng Kee; Gerratt, Bruce R.; Berke, Gerald S.; Beumer, John; Kapur, Kanika

doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2006.05.010

Cited by 117 publications

(104 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

100

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Reported percentage are between 22% and 91%, 9,14,[45][46][47][48][49][50] depending largely on the type of patients included, the type of reconstruction, the survival rate of patients and implants, and the length of the follow-up. In our study where the implants were placed during ablative surgery, a relatively large number of the living patients were rehabilitated with dentures (at T 2 , 92%; at T 3 , 83%).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Five‐year follow‐up of oral functioning and quality of life in patients with oral cancer with implant‐retained mandibular overdentures

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Five‐year follow‐up of oral functioning and quality of life in patients with oral cancer with implant‐retained mandibular overdentures

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the case of oral rehabilitation with dental implants in irradiated free transferred tissue, there is no reliable consensus regarding the effects of the level of irradiation (Garrett et al, 2006). However, Raoul et al suggested that implant placement should be avoided in areas that have received radiotherapy doses of more than 50 Gy (Raoul et al, 2009 Raoul et al reported that implant loss occurred only in 1 irradiated vascularized fibula flap among a total of 18 implants placed in 6 patients, representing a success rate of 94% (Raoul et al, 2009).…”

Section: Dental Implantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mandibular Reconstruction with Vascularized Osseous Free Flaps: a Review of the Literature

Kim

Nam

et al. 2012

Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: This article reviews a few of the commonly used types of vascularized osseous free flaps in maxillofacial reconstruction, which still represents the gold standard of restoration. We also discuss the developing concepts in maxillofacial reconstruction. Recent findings: Most of the literature reconfirms the established patterns of reconstruction with the aid of vascularized osseous free flaps. This method of freetissue transfer is also feasible in cases of osteoradionecrosis or bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaw. These flaps are also suitable for prosthetic restoration using osseointegrated dental implants. Summary: Vascularized osseous free flaps still remain the standard of care. Improvements upon the free-tissue transfer method employing vascularized osseous free flaps, such as distraction osteogenesis, tissue engineering, and imaging techniques, currently require further development, but these technologies could lead to improved outcomes of maxillofacial reconstruction in the near future.

show abstract

“…Implant-supported dental rehabilitation improves oral health-related quality of life in these patients [6,7]. Although the volume and density of bone in the free fibula flap are ideal for implant rehabilitation, the quality of the peri-implant soft tissues is often not optimal [8].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sub-Periosteal Dissection with Denture-Guided Epithelial Regeneration: A Novel Method for Peri-Implant Soft Tissue Management in Reconstructed Mandibles

Kumar

Jacob

Kuriakose

2015

J. Maxillofac. Oral Surg.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background In patients with reconstructed mandibles using free fibula flaps, management of soft tissues around implants supporting dental rehabilitation, is often a clinical problem. Aim The aim of this paper is to describe a new technique, namely ''Sub-periosteal dissection and denture-guided epithelial regeneration (SD-DGER)'', as a method of periimplant soft tissue management in these patients. Materials and methodsThe technique consists of performing a subperiosteal dissection with creation of buccal and lingual flaps. These flaps form the buccal and lingual vestibule. Implants are placed and an interim denture is immediately loaded onto the implants to guide the regenerated epithelium. A keratinized mucosal layer is formed on the bare fibula bone in six months time. Results This technique was successful in producing fixed keratinized epithelial tissue around implants in patients with mandibles reconstructed using the free fibula flap in patients who did not undergo radiotherapy. ConclusionThe sub-periosteal dissection with denture guided epithelial regeneration is a predictable form of periimplant soft tissue management in selected patients with reconstructed jaws.

show abstract

Efficacy of conventional and implant-supported mandibular resection prostheses: Study overview and treatment outcomes

Cited by 117 publications

References 52 publications

Five‐year follow‐up of oral functioning and quality of life in patients with oral cancer with implant‐retained mandibular overdentures

Five‐year follow‐up of oral functioning and quality of life in patients with oral cancer with implant‐retained mandibular overdentures

Mandibular Reconstruction with Vascularized Osseous Free Flaps: a Review of the Literature

Sub-Periosteal Dissection with Denture-Guided Epithelial Regeneration: A Novel Method for Peri-Implant Soft Tissue Management in Reconstructed Mandibles

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About