Published in:
Clinical Oral Implants Research, 32 (2021) 4, Seite 470-486
Language:
English
DOI:
10.1111/clr.13716
ISSN:
0905-7161;
1600-0501
Origination:
Footnote:
Description:
AbstractObjectiveTo assess clinical and patient‐reported outcomes of implant‐prosthetic rehabilitations in patients with a history of head–neck cancer (HNC), treated with tumor resection without (TR) or with adjuvant radiotherapy (TR/RT). A healthy cohort rehabilitated with the same reconstructive protocols served as control group (C).Materials and MethodsA total of 28 women and 29 men were considered in the present retrospective study. Participants received 322 implants, finally supporting 79 prosthetic reconstructions. Primary outcome was the assessment of implant and prosthetic survival rates. Furthermore peri‐implant soft tissue parameters (attached peri‐implant mucosa, AM; modified bleeding and plaque indices, mBI/mPI; probing depth, PD) and prosthetic technical complications were documented. Patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) by means of visual analog scales (VAS) and the Oral Health Impact Profile German 14 form (OHIP G14) were collected. For statistical purposes Chi‐square and Mann–Whitney‐U‐Test were adapted.ResultsAfter a mean follow‐up of 81.2 ± 50.3 months, implant survival rate was 98.1% (HNC‐TR), 98.2% (HNC‐TR/RT) and 100.0% (C), respectively (four implants failed in the HNC groups). HNC‐TR/RT showed significant higher mPI and mBI compared to C. Within HNC‐TR/RT, vestibuloplasty significantly reduced mBI and PD values. No failures occurred at the prosthetic level. Overall, higher VAS scores were reported for bar‐ compared with Locator‐retained prostheses. Furthermore, increased OHIP G14 values resulted for HNC‐TR/RT.ConclusionsHigh survival rates on implant and prosthetic level were observed. The use of soft tissue grafts resulted in stabilization of the peri‐implant mucosa in irradiated patients. In terms of retention and chewing ability, participants preferred bars over Locator attachments.