Survival of Dental Implants on Irradiated Jaws: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Kende, Prajwalit; Ranganath, Suleka; Landge, Jayant; Sarda, Ashish Sunilkumar; Wadewale, Maroti; Patil, Abhinandan; Singhavi, Hitesh

doi:10.1007/s12663-022-01686-6

Cited by 10 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“… Kende y cols. 15 plasman una tasa de supervivencia del 82,47 % y 89,37 % en maxilares irradiados y no irradiados respectivamente tras un seguimiento medio de 52,5 meses, presentando un OR = 0,24 (IC 95 %; 0,14 a 0,40).…”

Section: Resultados De Interés Principalunclassified

“…(ítem 1), mientras que solo tres estudios 5,15,16 especifican una declaración explícita sobre la realización y registro de un protocolo previo al estudio (ítem 2), así como también los seis estudios 2,4,5,14-16 presentan una justificación parcial sobre el porqué de los diseños incluidos (ítem 3).…”

Section: Evaluación Metodológicaunclassified

“…Respecto a la búsqueda de información, cinco estudios 2,4,5,14,15 usaron al menos dos bases de datos relevantes a través de una estrategia con restricciones justificadas (ítem 4), mientras que solo dos estudios 2,15 realizaron tanto una selección como una extracción de datos por duplicado (ítem 5 e ítem 6).…”

Section: Evaluación Metodológicaunclassified

“…En cuanto a la elegibilidad, dos estudios 4,15 proporcionan en forma parcial una lista y justificación de todos los estudios potencialmente relevantes evaluados por texto completo que fueron excluidos de la revisión, mientras que los cuatro restantes 2,5,14,16 no proporcionan datos (ítem 7), siendo la descripción de todos los estudios analizados reportadas en forma exhaustiva (ítem 8), donde los seis estudios 2,4,5,14-16 aplicaron técnicas satisfactorias para evaluar el riesgo de sesgo de los estudios incluidos en sus revisiones (ítem 9). Sin embargo, ninguno de los autores 2,4,5,14-16 reportó las fuentes de financiación de los estudios incluidos en sus respectivas revisiones (ítem 10).…”

Section: Evaluación Metodológicaunclassified

“…Todos los estudios 2,4,5,14-16 plasman un metanálisis con métodos apropiados para la combinación estadística de resultados (ítem 11), siendo evaluados e interpretados el impacto potencial del riesgo de sesgo sobre los resultados del metanálisis, proporcionando una explicación satisfactoria sobre la heterogeneidad y magnitud del sesgo de publicación, además de informar cualquier potencial fuente de conflicto de interés (ítem 12, ítem 13, ítem 14, ítem 15, ítem 16). En forma general, los estudios poseen una calidad metodológica media 4,5,14,16 y alta 2,15 , por tanto, un bajo riesgo de sesgo tanto para subestimación o sobreestimación de los hallazgos.…”

Section: Evaluación Metodológicaunclassified

See 4 more Smart Citations

Radioterapia y riesgo de supervivencia en implantes dentales: Resumen de revisiones sistemáticas.

Fuentes-Barría¹,

Eguía²

2023

j.maxilo

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

La radioterapia es el principal factor de riesgo para la rehabilitación oral con implantes. El objetivo de este trabajo fue evaluar, mediante un resumen de revisiones sistemáticas, la supervivencia de los implantes colocados en mandíbulas comparada con mandíbulas no irradiadas. Se realizó una búsqueda electrónica entre 2018 y 2022 en las bases de datos Medline / Pubmed, Scopus y la Web of Science, con la estrategia de búsqueda "Radiotherapy AND Dental Implants AND survival", seleccionándose solo revisiones sistemáticas con metanálisis de estudios clínicos aleatorizados y/o observacionales. Se identificaron 38 registros de los cuales luego de aplicar los criterios de elegibilidad se analizaron seis, cuyos resultados mostraron una correlación entre la radioterapia y el fracaso de implantes dentales, siendo la tasa de supervivencia del implante reportada mayor en zonas no irradiadas en comparación a zonas irradiadas. No obstante, estas diferencias entre hueso radiado y no radiado se reducen a medida que pasa el tiempo, mientras que la incidencia de efectos adversos como la osteorradionecrosis es bajo.

show abstract

Section: Resultados De Interés Principalunclassified

Section: Evaluación Metodológicaunclassified

See 3 more Smart Citations

Radioterapia y riesgo de supervivencia en implantes dentales: Resumen de revisiones sistemáticas.

Fuentes-Barría¹,

Eguía²

2023

j.maxilo

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Survival of osseointegrated implants in head and neck cancer patients submitted to multimodal treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Camolesi,

Veronese,

Celestino

et al. 2023

Support Care Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: to investigate the survival rate in implants placement in irradiated and non-irradiated bone in patients undergoing head and neck cancer (HNC) treatment. We focused on the consequences of the main complications, such as osteoradionecrosis, peri-implantitis.Methods: An electronic search conducted by PRISMA protocol was performed. Full texts were carefully assessed, and data were assimilated into a tabular form for discussion and consensus among the expert panel. The quality assessment and the risk of bias are veri ed by Joanna Briggs Institute checklist (JBI) and The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), and Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) assessment tool.Results: A total of 452 records were identi ed in the based on our PICOs strategy and after screening, 19 articles were included in the descriptive analysis of the review. Totaling 473 implants placed in irradiated and non-irradiated bone, and 31.6 % of the patients were over 60 years of age. 57.9%) performed implant placement in a period of 12 months or more after the ending of radiotherapy. Only 5 studies had a follow-up period longer than 5 years after implant placement, of which three were used for the meta-analysis. In the meta-analysis of 5-year survival rate analysis of implants in irradiated bone was assessed; a random effect model was used and a weighted proportion (PP) of 93.13% (95% CI: 87.20 -99.06; p<0.001), and in the 5-year survival rate analysis of implants in non-irradiated bone was analysed, a xed effect model was used and a weighted proportion (PP) of 98.52% survival (95% CI: 97.56-99.48, p<0.001). Conclusions: Survival rates of implants placed in irradiated bone is clinically satisfactory after a follow-up of 5 years, with a fewer percentage than in implants placed in non-irradiated bone after metanalyses performed.

show abstract

Survival of dental implants and occurrence of mucosal overgrowth in patients with head and neck cancer treated with/without radiotherapy and mucosal graft—two-year follow-up

Mattila,

Wilkman,

Avellán

et al. 2024

Clin Oral Invest

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives The primary aim of the present study was to compare head and neck cancer treatment modality surgery and surgery with radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy alone for dental implant (DI) survival. The second aim was to evaluate the prevalence of mucosal overgrowth around DI after treatment with or without mucosal grafts. Materials and methods An observational retrospective study consisted of 59 patients with malignant head and neck tumors that received DI between 2015 and 2019. Treatment modalities together with information on oral rehabilitation with DI, prevalence of mucosal overgrowth, and precursor lesions were gathered from the hospital records. Radiation doses were determined using a sum of three-dimensional dose distributions. Results Overall DI survival rate was 88%, in irritated jaw 89%, and in nonirradiated jaw 88% in this observational period (p = 0.415, mean follow-up was 2 years 10 months, range 9–82 months). Mucosal overgrowth was found in 42 of 196 implants (21%), of which 36 cases (86%) were associated in grafted areas (p < 0.001). Oral lichen planus/lichenoid reaction was diagnosed in 14 of all 59 (24%) oral cancer patients. Conclusion Implant survival was not significantly influenced by radiation therapy in this observational period. In grafted bone, implant survival was significantly inferior than in native bone. Mucosal overgrowth around implants was more common in mucosal grafted areas versus nongrafted. Clinical relevance This study demonstrates the impact of grafted bone to dental implant survival rate and mucosal overgrowth.

show abstract

Survival of Dental Implants on Irradiated Jaws: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Cited by 10 publications

References 38 publications

Radioterapia y riesgo de supervivencia en implantes dentales: Resumen de revisiones sistemáticas.

Radioterapia y riesgo de supervivencia en implantes dentales: Resumen de revisiones sistemáticas.

Survival of osseointegrated implants in head and neck cancer patients submitted to multimodal treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Survival of dental implants and occurrence of mucosal overgrowth in patients with head and neck cancer treated with/without radiotherapy and mucosal graft—two-year follow-up

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About