RDX
No RDX
Author
Year of publication
No. of implants placed into autogenous bone grafts with RDX (and failures)
Overall implant survival of implants placed into autogenous bone grafts with RDX
No. of patients who had implants placed into autogenous bone grafts with RDX (and failures)
Patient based implant survival of implant placed into autogenous bone grafts with RDX
No. of...
Non-vascularised bone graft
Vascularised bone graft
Author
Year of publication
No. of patients who had implants placed into non-vascularised autogenous bone grafts (and failures)
Overall patient implant survival in non-vascularised autogenous bone grafts
No. of implants placed into non-vascularised autogenous bone grafts (and failures)
Overall implant survival in non-vasculari...
Implant survival
Implant success
Author
Year of publication
Donor site of autogenous bone graft
Radiotherapy/chemotherapy to bone graft site
Complications
No. of patients who had implants placed into autogenous bone grafts (and failures)
Overall patient implant survival in autogenous bone grafts
No. of implants placed into autogenous bone grafts (and failures)
Overall i...
Author
Year of publication
Study design
Outcome measure
Criteria—survival
Criteria—success
Quality assessment using the MINORS assessment tool
Head and neck cancer diagnosis
Patients age range
Follow-up period
Implant site
Implant system
Implant placement protocol
Prosthodontic rehabilitation
Studies with an average follow-up of 3 years or greater
Watzinger et...
Figure 1. Flow chart of study selection procedure
References
Schoen PJ, Reintsema H, Raghoebar GM, Vissink A, Roodenburg JLN. The use of implant retained mandibular prostheses in the oral rehabilitation of head and neck cancer patients. A review and rationale for treatment planning. Oral Oncol. 2004;40:862–71.
Müller F, Schädler M, Wahlmann U, Newton JP. The use of implant-supported prostheses in the functional and psychosocial rehabi...
Conclusion
Within the limitations of the current review, it can be concluded that implant survival in autogenous bone grafts in H&N oncology patients appears to be promising with implant survival being reported at over 80% in 16 of the 20 studies included with 11 of these reporting implant survival of over 90% in follow-up ranging from 3 months [28] to 15 years [5]. However, there i...
A clear deficiency of many of the studies was the imprecise and inconsistent definitions of implant survival or implant success, as detailed in Table 1. In addition, in a number of studies, the terminology ‘implant success’ and ‘implant survival’ were used interchangeably within the narrative making comparison of the studies challenging and rendering statistical analysis of the surv...
The implant placement protocol with regard to primary (immediate) or secondary (delayed) implant placement was also reviewed, and there is limited evidence from Fenlon et al. that implant failure is significantly worse in immediately placed implants in comparison with a delayed approach in free vascularized grafts.
Implant success was shown to be lower than implant survival and was related ...
Discussion
Summary of evidence
Dental implants are now perceived to be a vital part of the clinician’s armamentarium in the provision of oral and dental rehabilitation for patients with acquired deformity following management of their H&N cancer, and therefore, this systematic review is relevant to clinicians and stakeholders involved in the treatment and management of H&N cancer patient...
Six of these studies (Schultes et al., Wang et al., Zou et al., Chiapasco et al., Chiapasco et al., Wu et al.) reported some of this lack of success to the peri-implant soft tissue which was most frequently the soft tissue component of a combined bone and soft tissue free flap (most commonly the external skin).
Complications
A variety of implant-based complications were documented. Complicatio...
Implant survival and Peri-implant soft tissue
Only one study (Linsen et al. ) reported on the effect of the peri-implant soft tissue and implant survival of implants placed into autogenous bone grafts. Linsen et al. reported a higher implant failure of implants placed into bone and soft tissue grafts in comparison to implants placed into a bone grafts with residual soft tissues. This difference...
However, in two studies (Teoh et al., Burgess et al.), no statistical significance was found despite higher implant failure.
Primary and secondary implant placement and implant survival
Six studies clearly reported the use of both primary and secondary implant placement within their study (Fenlon et al., Ch’ng et al., Zou et al., Burgess et al., Watzinger et al., Wu et al.); however, only on...
Two studies (Fenlon et al., Burgess et al. ) reported no significant effect on implant survival in varying graft donor sites; however, three studies (Hessling et al., Shaw et al., Chiapasco et al.) reported varying implant survival rates within different autogenous bone grafts but only one study (Hessling et al.) reported that implant loss was significant with this being for implants placed into...
Autogenous bone graft type and implant survival
Seventeen studies reported on the specific bone graft type (non-vascularised or vascularised) into which the implants were placed. In the remaining three studies (Buddula et al., Fierz et al., Yerit et al.), this distinction was not possible.
Of these 17 studies, 8 studies reported on implant survival in non-vascularised bone grafts and 14 studie...
The surgical and loading implant protocols were reported in 17 studies with no description given in 3 studies (Barrowman et al., Fierz et al., Hessling et al.). The implant placement protocols were diverse with variables including the use of surgical templates/guides, primary and/or secondary implant placement following autogenous bone grafting, and immediate and/or delayed implant loading; howe...
These 20 studies were published over a range of 21 years (1996 to 2017) and provide cumulative data on 1905 implants placed into autogenous bone grafts in H&N cancer patients with both benign and malignant tumours being reported. The exact patient number for this intervention within some of the studies was unclear as a result of the studies reporting on implant rather than patient number or ther...
Results
Study selection
Searches of EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Science Direct and MEDLINE generated 619 articles. After duplicate articles were removed, 566 unique articles were remaining. After the review of the titles and abstracts, 151 articles were accepted for further consideration, and 415 were rejected. After the full text was attained and reviewed for t...
Data items
Data was collected for implant survival, implant success, implant failure, implant complications, surgical implant placement protocol, implant system used, clinical follow-up, how the author defined success/survival, the type of autogenous bone graft, implant site, the prosthodontic rehabilitation and type of cancer, and the use of radiotherapy were documented where possible.
Risk of ...
Information sources
Four electronic databases were used to systematically search the available literature: (1) The National Library of Medicine (MEDLINE via PubMed), (2) EMBASE, (3) Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and (4) Science Direct. The searches were limited to studies involving human subjects and publication dates from January 1980 to August 2017 that satisfied the inclusion ...
Methods
Protocol
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) for describing and summarising the results of our review was used.
A quality assessment of all selected full-text articles was performed using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) assessment tool to assess the risk of bias of the included studies. The MINORS scoring list co...
Introduction
Rationale
The use of implants to retain prostheses as part of oral and dental rehabilitation of head and neck (H&N) cancer patients is becoming an increasingly common treatment approach. A number of benefits advocating implant anchorage over conventionally secured prostheses have been proposed but importantly include a significant improvement in the reported quality of life (QoL) of...
Survival of dental implants placed in autogenous bone grafts and bone flaps in head and neck oncology patients: a systematic review
Abstract
Using implants to retain prostheses as part of the oral rehabilitation of head and neck cancer patients is an increasingly common treatment modality, particularly in transported bone which is used to reconstruct defects following oncological surgical ...