Craniofacial implants at a single centre 2005-2015: retrospective review of 451 implants

Elledge, Ross; Chaggar, J.; Knapp, N.; Martín, Timothy; White, Nicholas J.; Evriviades, Demetrius; Edmondson, Stefan; Parmar, Sat

doi:10.1016/j.bjoms.2016.11.324

Cited by 11 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The few available studies that treated patients during and after ablative surgery infer that placing endosseous implants during ablative surgery does not lead to worse or better function than implants placed in a secondary setting. 15,16,25 We could confirm this observation. It is sometimes argued that secondary placement offers better implant positioning but, with the current advances in digital planning techniques and early involvement of a maxillofacial prosthodontist, we believe that optimal implant positioning can also be achieved during ablative surgery.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 63%

“…Besides the timing of implant placement in relation to radiation therapy, placing implants during or after ablative surgery is also a common issue of debate. The few available studies that treated patients during and after ablative surgery infer that placing endosseous implants during ablative surgery does not lead to worse or better function than implants placed in a secondary setting 15,16,25 . We could confirm this observation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 62%

“…[13][14][15] Some studies recommend placing implants before starting radiation therapy (during ablative surgery), while others recommend implant treatment after radiotherapy. 16,17 Although implant survival and patient satisfaction rates are high, most studies in the literature present short-term results on small patient groups. This is in line with the conclusion of the Chrcanovic et al review on craniofacial implant survival and complications.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, the timing of craniofacial implant placement in oncology patients, e.g., before or after radiotherapy, is still an issue of debate 13–15 . Some studies recommend placing implants before starting radiation therapy (during ablative surgery), while others recommend implant treatment after radiotherapy 16,17 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Outcome of implants placed to retain craniofacial prostheses – A retrospective cohort study with a follow‐up of up to 30 years

Alberga

Eggels

Visser

et al. 2022

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To retrospectively assess the treatment outcomes of endosseous implants placed to retain craniofacial prostheses.Material and Methods: Patients with craniofacial defects resulting from congenital disease, trauma, or oncologic treatment had implant retained prostheses placed in the mastoid, orbital, or nasal region and then assessed over a period of up to 30 years. Implant survival rates were calculated with the Kaplan-Meier method. Clinical assessments consisted of scoring skin reactions under the prosthesis and the periimplant skin reactions. Possible risk factors for implant loss were identified. Patient satisfaction was evaluated using a 10-point VAS-scale.Results: A total of 525 implants placed in 201 patients were included. The median follow up was 71 months (IQR 28-174 months). Implants placed in the mastoid and nasal region showed the highest overall implant survival rates (10-year implant survival rates of 93.7% and 92.5%, respectively), while the orbital implants had the lowest overall survival rate (84.2%). Radiotherapy was a significant risk factor for implant loss (HR 3.14, p < 0.001). No differences in implant loss were found between pre-and post-operative radiotherapy (p = 0.89). Soft tissue problems were not frequently encountered, and the patients were highly satisfied with their implant-retained prosthesis. Conclusion:Implants used to retain craniofacial prostheses have high survival and patient satisfaction rates and can thus be considered as a predictable treatment option. Radiation is the most important risk factor for implant loss.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 63%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 62%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Outcome of implants placed to retain craniofacial prostheses – A retrospective cohort study with a follow‐up of up to 30 years

Alberga

Eggels

Visser

et al. 2022

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…If covering of the defect in the maxilla after tumor surgery is not possible for any reason, obturators become necessary [11,12]. Dental implants are often the method of choice for prosthetic treatment after resective surgery in patients with head and neck tumors with good clinical results [3,4,[10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical performance of different types of dental prosthesis in patients with head and neck tumors—a retrospective cohort study

Zierden

Wöstmann

et al. 2022

Clin Oral Invest

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Use of ultrasound intraoperatively to locate extraoral implants

Mikhael

McGoldrick

Beamer

et al. 2019

British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Craniofacial implants at a single centre 2005-2015: retrospective review of 451 implants

Cited by 11 publications

References 14 publications

Outcome of implants placed to retain craniofacial prostheses – A retrospective cohort study with a follow‐up of up to 30 years

Outcome of implants placed to retain craniofacial prostheses – A retrospective cohort study with a follow‐up of up to 30 years

Clinical performance of different types of dental prosthesis in patients with head and neck tumors—a retrospective cohort study

Use of ultrasound intraoperatively to locate extraoral implants

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About