Immediate implant placement with immediate or delayed provisionalization in the maxillary aesthetic zone: A 10-year randomized trial.

AIM: To compare the marginal bone level of immediately placed implants, with either immediate or delayed provisionalization (IP or DP), in the maxillary aesthetic zone after 10 years of function. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Participants with a failing tooth in the maxillary aesthetic zone were randomly assigned to immediate implant placement with either IP (n = 20) or DP (n = 20) after primary wound closure with a free gingival graft. The final restoration was placed 3 months after provisionalization. The primary outcome was change in marginal bone level. In addition, implant survival, restoration survival and success, peri-implant tissue health, mucosa levels, aesthetic indices, buccal bone thickness and patient satisfaction were evaluated. RESULTS: After 10 years, the mean mesial and distal changes in marginal bone level were -0.47 ± 0.45 mm and -0.49 ± 0.52 mm in the IP group and -0.58 ± 0.76 mm and -0.41 ± 0.72 mm in the DP group (p = .61; p = .71). The survival rate was 100% for the implants; for the restorations, it was 88.9% in the IP group and 87.5% in the DP group. Restoration success, according to modified USPHS criteria, was 77.8% in the IP group and 75.0% in the DP group. The prevalence of peri-implant mucositis was 38.9% and 35.7% and of peri-implantitis 0.0% and 6.3%, respectively, in the IP group and DP group (p = 1.0; p = .40). The Pink Esthetic Score and White Esthetic Score was 15.28 ± 2.32 in the IP group and 14.64 ± 2.74 in the DP group, both clinically acceptable (p = .48). The buccal bone thickness was lower in the DP group. Patient satisfaction was similar in both groups (p = .75). CONCLUSIONS: The mean marginal bone level changes after immediate implant placement with IP were similar to those after immediate placement with DP. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered in the National Trial Register (NL9340).

The Peri-Implant Microbiome-A Possible Factor Determining the Success of Surgical Peri-Implantitis Treatment?

The objective was to assess the effect of peri-implantitis surgery on the peri-implant microbiome with a follow-up of one year. A total of 25 peri-implantitis patients in whom non-surgical treatment has failed to solve peri-implantitis underwent resective surgical treatment. Their peri-implant pockets were sampled prior to surgical treatment (T0) and one year post treatment (T12). The natural dentition was sampled to analyse similarities and differences with the peri-implantitis samples. Treatment success was recorded. The change in microbial relative abundance levels was evaluated. The microbiota was analysed by sequencing the amplified V3-V4 region of the 16S rRNA genes. Sequence data were binned to amplicon sequence variants that were assigned to bacterial genera. Group differences were analysed using principal coordinate analysis, Wilcoxon signed rank tests, and t-tests. Beta diversity analyses reported a significant separation between peri-implantitis and natural dentition samples on T0 and T12, along with significant separations between successfully and non-successfully treated patients. Eubacterium was significantly lower on T12 compared to T0 for the peri-implantitis samples. Treponema and Eubacterium abundance levels were significantly lower in patients with treatment success on T0 and T12 versus no treatment success. Therefore, lower baseline levels of Treponema and Eubacterium seem to be associated with treatment success of peri-implantitis surgery. This study might aid clinicians in determining which peri-implantitis cases might be suitable for treatment and give a prognosis with regard to treatment success.

Single crowns in the posterior maxilla supported by either 11-mm long implants with sinus floor augmentation or by 6-mm long implants: A 10-year randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the clinical performance of single crowns in the posterior maxilla supported by either 11-mm long implants combined with maxillary sinus floor augmentation (MSFA) surgery or by 6-mm long implants during a 10-year follow-up period. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Subjects were randomly allocated to receive one 11-mm long implant in combination MFSA or to receive one 6-mm long implant without any grafting. Twenty-one implants in 20 patients were placed in the 6-mm group and 20 implants in 18 patients were placed in the 11-mm group. Both groups were followed by clinical and radiographic examinations up to 10 years. Patients' satisfaction was also scored before treatment. RESULTS: Two patients died and eight patients moved during the follow-up. Two patients lost an implant in the 6-mm group and one implant was lost in the 11-mm group (implant survival 89.5% and 90.9%, respectively). From loading to 10 years' follow-up, mean ± SE marginal bone loss in the 6-mm group and 11-mm group was 0.18 ± 0.10 mm and 0.26 ± 0.12 mm, respectively, without a significant difference between the groups at 10 years (p = .650). In both groups, indices scores for plaque, calculus, gingiva and bleeding were low as well as mean pocket probing depth. Patients' satisfaction at 10 years was high in both groups; mean overall satisfaction in the 6-mm group and 11-mm group was 9.6 ± 0.6 and 9.2 ± 0.8, respectively (p = .168). CONCLUSIONS: Placement of 6-mm implants or 11-mm implants combined MFSA are equally successful during a 10-year follow-up period when applied for supporting a single restoration.

Preprosthetic Surgery-Narrative Review and Current Debate.

This review describes the role of modern preprosthetic surgery. The atrophic edentulous jaw can cause severe functional impairment for patients, leading to inadequate denture retention, reduced quality of life, and significant health problems. The aim of preprosthetic surgery is to restore function and form due to tooth loss arising from congenital deformity, trauma, or ablative surgery. Alveolar bone loss is due to disuse atrophy following tooth loss. The advent of dental implants and their ability to preserve bone heralded the modern version of preprosthetic surgery. Their ability to mimic natural teeth has overcome the age-old problem of edentulism and consequent jaw atrophy. Controversies with preprosthetic surgery are discussed: soft tissue versus hard tissue augmentation in the aesthetic zone, bone regeneration versus prosthetic tissue replacement in the anterior maxilla, sinus floor augmentation versus short implants in the posterior maxilla-interpositional bone grafting versus onlay grafts for vertical bone augmentation. Best results for rehabilitation are achieved by the team approach of surgeons, maxillofacial prosthodontists/general dentists, and importantly, informing patients about the available preprosthetic surgical options.

Site-specific radiation dosage and implant survival in oral cancer patients: A cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: We assessed the radiation dosages (Dmean ) on implant regions to identify the threshold for implant loss in patients with an intraoral malignancy treated with dental implants to support a mandibular denture during ablative surgery before volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data was collected prospectively from 28 patients treated surgically for an intraoral malignancy, followed by postoperative radiotherapy (VMAT) and analyzed retrospectively. Patients received 2 implants in the native mandible during ablative surgery. Implant-specific Dmean values were retrieved from the patients' files. Radiographic bone loss was measured 1 year after implant placement and during the last follow-up appointment. Implant survival was analyzed with the Kaplan-Meier method. Univariate logistic regression and Cox-regression analyses were performed to investigate the effect of increasing implant-specific radiation dosages on implant loss. RESULTS: Five out of 56 placed implants were lost during follow-up (median 36.0 months, IQR 39.0). Radiographically, peri-implant bone loss occurred in implants with a Dmean > 40 Gy. Implant loss occurred only in implants with a Dmean > 50 Gy. CONCLUSION: An implant-specific Dmean higher than 50 Gy is related to more peri-implant bone loss and, eventually, implant loss.

Prefabricated fibula free flaps in reconstruction of maxillofacial defects: Two cases of transplanting a fractured fibula.

BACKGROUND: The two-staged prefabricated vascularized fibula free flap is used in maxillofacial reconstruction. We describe the possible cause and management of two cases of fibula fracture after implant placement. METHODS: The patients were treated with two-stage reconstruction with a prefabricated vascularized fibula free flap. Six dental implants were placed in both fibulas. Fibula fractures occurred during the osseointegration period before the second procedure. The reconstruction was continued as planned. RESULTS: Both fibulas fractured in the distal segment, possibly due to a thinner cortex more distally. Harvesting of a fractured fibula flap is more difficult than normally due to callus formation and fibrosis. Both transplants became fully functional with extended healing and additional surgery. CONCLUSION: The fracture apparently did not compromise the vascularisation of the fibula and proved still sufficient for successful harvest and transfer of the flap. The patient should be made aware that additional corrective surgery may be indicated.

ITI consensus report on zygomatic implants: indications, evaluation of surgical techniques and long-term treatment outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the ITI Consensus Workshop on zygomatic implants was to provide Consensus Statements and Clinical Recommendations for the use of zygomatic implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three systematic reviews and one narrative review were written to address focused questions on (1) the indications for the use of zygomatic implants; (2) the survival rates and complications associated with surgery in zygomatic implant placement; (3) long-term survival rates of zygomatic implants and (4) the biomechanical principles involved when zygoma implants are placed under functional loads. Based on the reviews, three working groups then developed Consensus Statements and Clinical Recommendations. These were discussed in a plenary and finalized in Delphi rounds. RESULTS: A total of 21 Consensus Statements were developed from the systematic reviews. Additionally, the group developed 17 Clinical Recommendations based on the Consensus Statements and the combined expertise of the participants. CONCLUSIONS: Zygomatic implants are mainly indicated in cases with maxillary bone atrophy or deficiency. Long-term mean zygomatic implant survival was 96.2% [95% CI 93.8; 97.7] over a mean follow-up of 75.4 months (6.3 years) with a follow-up range of 36-141.6 months (3-11.8 years). Immediate loading showed a statistically significant increase in survival over delayed loading. Sinusitis presented with a total prevalence of 14.2% [95% CI 8.8; 22.0] over a mean 65.4 months follow-up, representing the most common complication which may lead to zygomatic implant loss. The international experts suggested clinical recommendations regarding planning, surgery, restoration, outcomes, and the patient's perspective.

Evaluation of surgical techniques in survival rate and complications of zygomatic implants for the rehabilitation of the atrophic edentulous maxilla: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: To assess the outcome [zygomatic implant (ZI) survival] and complications of the original surgical technique (OST) and an Anatomy-Guided approach (AGA) in the placement of ZI in patients with severely atrophic maxillae. METHODS: Two independent reviewers conducted an electronic literature search from January 2000 to August 2022. The inclusion criteria were articles reporting at least five patients with severely atrophic edentulous maxilla undergoing placement OST and/or AGA, with a minimum of 6 months of follow-up. Number of patients, defect characteristics, number of ZI, implant details, surgical technique, survival rate, loading protocol, prosthetic rehabilitation, complications, and follow-up period were compared. RESULTS: Twenty-four studies comprised 2194 ZI in 918 patients with 41 failures. The ZI survival rate was 90.3-100% in OST and 90.4-100% in AGA. Probability of complications with ZI with OST was as follows: sinusitis, 9.53%; soft tissue infection, 7.50%; paresthesia, 10.78%; oroantral fistulas, 4.58%; and direct surgical complication, 6.91%. With AGA, the presenting complications were as follows: sinusitis, 4.39%; soft tissue infection, 4.35%; paresthesia, 0.55%; oroantral fistulas, 1.71%; and direct surgical complication, 1.60%. The prevalence of immediate loading protocol was 22.3% in OST and 89.6% in the AGA. Due to the heterogeneity of studies, statistical comparison was only possible after the descriptive analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the current systematic review, placing ZI in severely atrophic edentulous maxillae rehabilitation with the OST and AGA is associated with a high implant survival rate and surgical complications within a minimum of 6 months follow-up. Complications, including sinusitis and soft tissue infection around the implant, are the most common. The utilization of immediate loading protocol is more observed in AGA than in OST.

Factors Associated with Esthetic Outcomes of Flapless Immediate Placed and Loaded Implants in the Maxillary Incisor Region-Three-Year Results of a Prospective Case Series.

Flapless immediate implant placement and provisionalization (FIIPP) is often associated with an increased risk of buccal soft-tissue recession. This study aims to assess the 3-year esthetic outcome. In 100 consecutive patients, one maxillary incisor, with or without a pre-extraction buccal bone defect (≤5 mm), was replaced by an implant installed in a maximal palatal position (buccal gap ≥2 mm). The created gaps were filled with bovine bone substitute. Patient satisfaction (PS), pink esthetic scores (PES/modPES), and white esthetic score (WES) were calculated at different time points. A multilevel regression analysis (MRA) was performed to analyze which factors may be associated with the esthetics. After three years, PS scored 8.9 ± 0.84 on a scale of 10 (n = 83), and the soft-tissue esthetics were high (PES = 12.2; modPES = 8.5), as was the WES (8.2), showing no decrease from one year. Buccal bone defect size and smoking could not be associated with the soft-tissue outcome; however, implant location, gap size, and emergence profiles could. Performing FIIPP, the final crown (WES) scored highest when it was cemented, the soft tissue (PES/modPES) in central-incisor positions, and all (WES/PES/modPES) with concave emergence profiles.

The performance of two-implant overdentures in the atrophic maxilla: a case series with 1-year follow-up.

PURPOSE: To assess the implant and prosthesis survival rates, the clinical, radiographical and patient-related outcome measures, and the masticatory performance of maxillary overdentures supported by two implants in patients with an atrophic maxilla. METHODS: In this case series, 15 consecutive patients who were eligible for maxillary implant overdenture therapy, but who had insufficient bone volume to place at least four implants and were unwilling to be treated with reconstructive surgery were asked to participate. After giving consent, participants received two implants in the maxilla under local anaesthesia. After 3 months of osseointegration, a maxillary overdenture with palatal coverage and solitary attachments was fabricated. Implant and overdenture survival, marginal bone level change, clinical outcome measures, masticatory performance and patient-related outcomes were evaluated at baseline and 1 year after overdenture placement. RESULTS: Fourteen out of 15 participants completed the follow-up period of 12 months. Implant and overdenture survival rate were 89.3% and 85.7%, respectively. Change in marginal bone level (- 0.5 ± 0.7 mm), change in probing depth (0.0 ± 1.0 mm), and clinical outcomes were favourable. Masticatory performance and patient-related outcomes improved significantly compared to baseline. Complications were minimal. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that patients with extreme resorption of the maxilla that are unwilling to be treated with reconstructive surgery, benefit from two-implant maxillary overdentures retained by solitary attachments in terms of improved masticatory functioning and denture satisfaction. However, they have relatively high risk of implant loss. TRIAL REGISTRATION: UMCG Trial Register (RR201900060), registered 22 January 2019.

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

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 peri-implant 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.

Digital Workflow for Immediate Implant Placement and Chairside Provisionalization in the Esthetic Zone.

Introduction: Immediate implant placement and immediate chairside provisionalization in the esthetic zone require meticulous treatment planning. A digital workflow that combines intraoral scans and a cone beam computed tomography scan can be used to visualize the surgical and restorative aspects of the treatment and to plan a prosthetically driven implant position. A digital workflow in implant dentistry enables the prefabrication of an individualized CAD/CAM temporary restoration, based on the planned implant position. This could be a predictable method to deliver a screw-retained temporary restoration, directly after static computer-assisted immediate implant surgery. Interventions. Three patients with a failing tooth in the maxillary esthetic zone were treated with immediate implant placement and chairside provisionalization using this digital workflow. After 3 months, a final restoration was placed. Clinical, radiographic, and patient-reported outcome measures were collected prior to implant treatment, 6 weeks after placing the temporary restoration and then 1 month and 1 year after placing the final restoration. Outcomes. At the 1-year follow-up, healthy soft tissues were observed, and peri-implant bone levels were stable. Patient satisfaction after the treatment was high. Conclusion: The three reported cases demonstrate the potential for predictable immediate implant placement and chairside provisionalization using a digital workflow.

Three-Dimensional Guided Zygomatic Implant Placement after Maxillectomy.

Zygomatic implants are used in patients with maxillary defects to improve the retention and stability of obturator prostheses, thereby securing good oral function. Prosthetic-driven placement of zygomatic implants is even difficult for experienced surgeons, and with a free-hand approach, deviation from the preplanned implant positions is inevitable, thereby impeding immediate implant-retained obturation. A novel, digitalized workflow of surgical planning was used in 10 patients. Maxillectomy was performed with 3D-printed cutting, and drill guides were used for subsequent placement of zygomatic implants with immediate placement of implant-retained obturator prosthesis. The outcome parameters were the accuracy of implant positioning and the prosthetic fit of the obturator prosthesis in this one-stage procedure. Zygomatic implants (n = 28) were placed with good accuracy (mean deviation 1.73 ± 0.57 mm and 2.97 ± 1.38° 3D angle deviation), and in all cases, the obturator prosthesis fitted as pre-operatively planned. The 3D accuracy of the abutment positions was 1.58 ± 1.66 mm. The accuracy of the abutment position in the occlusal plane was 2.21 ± 1.33 mm, with a height accuracy of 1.32 ± 1.57 mm. This feasibility study shows that the application of these novel designed 3D-printed surgical guides results in predictable zygomatic implant placement and provides the possibility of immediate prosthetic rehabilitation in head and neck oncology patients after maxillectomy.

Incidence of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis in patients with a maxillary overdenture: A sub-analysis of two prospective studies with a 10-year follow-up period.

BACKGROUND: Though studies on maxillary overdentures show satisfying results on implant survival, patient-related outcomes and prosthetic complications, the epidemiology of peri-implant diseases in this specific group of patients has hardly been reported. While the general patient-level prevalence of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis are estimated at ~45% and ~20%, respectively, the risk of developing these diseases within a specific period is less clear. To fully appreciate the epidemiology of peri-implant diseases, more long-term data on incidence of peri-implant diseases are needed. PURPOSE: The purpose of this sub-analysis of two prospective studies was to assess the incidence of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis in fully edentulous patients with implant-retained maxillary overdentures during a 10-year follow-up period. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred and sixteen patients treated with implant-supported maxillary overdentures were available from two clinical trials. Data on biological complications, clinical and radiographical parameters were collected for 106 patients at 5-year, for 82 patients at 10-year follow-up. The incidence was calculated following the consensus of the 2017 World Workshop on the Classification of Periodontal and Peri-Implant Diseases and Conditions. Extent and severity then were calculated to enable an appropriate epidemiological description of peri-implantitis. RESULTS: The patient-level incidence of peri-implant mucositis was 37.7% after 5 years and 64.6% after 10 years whereas the patient-level incidence of peri-implantitis was 10.4% after 5 years and 19.5% after 10 years. After 10 years, the extent of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis is 52.8% and 43.8%, respectively. In terms of severity, 26.5% of all affected implants suffered from >3 mm bone loss and 17.6% of all affected implants was lost. CONCLUSION: Three of five fully edentulous patients with implant-supported maxillary overdentures experience peri-implant mucositis after 10 years. Peri-implantitis occurs in one of five patients after 10 years. In spite of these incidence rates, implant survival remains high.

Erythritol air polishing in the surgical treatment of peri-implantitis: A randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To compare erythritol air polishing with implant surface cleansing using saline during the surgical treatment of peri-implantitis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: During a resective surgical intervention, implant surfaces were randomly treated with either air polishing (test group n = 26 patients/53 implants) or saline-soaked cotton gauzes (control group n = 31 patients/ 40 implants). Primary outcome was change in mean bleeding on probing (BoP) from baseline to 12 months follow-up. Secondary outcomes were changes in mean suppuration on probing (SoP), plaque score (Plq), probing pocket depth (PPD), marginal bone loss (MBL), periodontal full-mouth scores (PFMS), and levels of 8 classical periodontal pathogens. Clinical and radiographical parameters were analyzed using multilevel regression analyses. Microbiological outcomes were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U test. RESULTS: No differences between the test and control group were found for BoP over 12 months of follow-up, nor for the secondary parameters Plq, PPD, and MBL. Between both groups, a significant difference was found for the levels of SoP (p = 0.035). No significant effect on microbiological levels was found. A total number of 6 implants were lost in the test group and 10 in the control group. At 1-year follow-up, a successful treatment outcome (PPD<5 mm, max 1 out of 6 sites BoP, no suppuration and no progressive bone loss >0.5 mm) was achieved for a total of 18 implants (19.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Erythritol air polishing as implant surface cleansing method was not more effective than saline during resective surgical treatment of peri-implantitis in terms of clinical, radiographical, and microbiological parameters. Both therapies resulted in low treatment success. TRIAL REGISTRY: https://www.trialregister.nl/ Identifier: NL8621.

Immediate single-tooth implant placement with simultaneous bone augmentation versus delayed implant placement after alveolar ridge preservation in bony defect sites in the esthetic region: A 5-year randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear if an intact buccal bony plate is a prerequisite for immediate implant placement in post-extraction sockets. The aim of this 5-year randomized controlled trial was therefore comparison of peri-implant soft and hard tissue parameters, esthetic ratings, and patient-reported satisfaction of immediate implant placement in post-extraction sockets with buccal bony defects of ≥ 5 mm in the esthetic zone, with delayed implant placement after ridge preservation. METHODS: Patients presenting a failing tooth in the esthetic region and a buccal bony defect of ≥ 5 mm after extraction were randomly assigned to immediate (Immediate group, n = 20) or delayed (Delayed group, n = 20) implant placement. Second-stage surgery and placement of a provisional restoration occurred 3 months after implant placement in both groups, followed by definitive restorations 3 months thereafter. The follow-up was 5 years. Marginal bone level (primary outcome), buccal bone thickness, soft tissue parameters, esthetics, and patient-reported satisfaction were recorded. RESULTS: Mean marginal bone level change was -0.71 ± 0.35 mm and -0.54 ± 0.41 mm in respectively the Immediate group and the Delayed group after 5 years (P = 0.202). This difference, and in other variables, was not significant. CONCLUSIONS: Marginal bone level changes, buccal bone thickness, clinical outcomes, esthetics, and patients' satisfaction following immediate implant placement, in combination with bone augmentation in post-extraction sockets with buccal bony defects of ≥ 5 mm, were comparable to those following delayed implant placement after ridge preservation in the esthetic zone.

General health status of Dutch elderly receiving implant-retained overdentures: A 9-year big data cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Very little information is available on the general health of elderly who are provided with an implant-retained overdenture (IOD). PURPOSE: The general health status of three groups of elderly (≥75 years) were compared: those with a natural dentition (ND), those treated with an implant-retained overdenture (IOD), and those wearing a conventional denture (CD). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data on healthcare costs were obtained from records of Dutch health insurers that are collected by Vektis. Data on general health (chronic diseases, medication use, and polypharmacy) were acquired for elderly patients with a ND, an IOD, and a CD in 2009 and 2017. Data on the general health of elderly who received an IOD were also acquired from 2010 through 2016. RESULTS: On average, the general health of elderly who received an IOD was comparable to general health of elderly with a ND and was better than the general health of elderly with a CD (lower prevalence of diabetes, cardiac disease, and hypertension). The general health profile of elderly receiving an IOD was consistent during all years. CONCLUSIONS: The general health of elderly with a ND or IODs is better than those with CDs.

What is the optimal timing for implant placement in oral cancer patients? A scoping literature review.

BACKGROUND: Oral cancer patients can benefit from dental implant placement. Traditionally, implants are placed after completing oncologic treatment (secondary implant placement). Implant placement during ablative surgery (primary placement) in oral cancer patients seems beneficial in terms of early start of oral rehabilitation and limiting additional surgical interventions. Guidelines on the ideal timing of implant placement in oral cancer patients are missing. OBJECTIVE: To perform a scoping literature review on studies examining the timing of dental implant placement in oral cancer patients and propose a clinical practice recommendations guideline. METHODS: A literature search for studies dealing with primary and/or secondary implant placement in MEDLINE was conducted (last search December 27, 2019). The primary outcome was 5-year implant survival. RESULTS: Sixteen out of 808 studies were considered eligible. Both primary and secondary implant placement showed acceptable overall implant survival ratios with a higher pooled 5-year implant survival rate for primary implant placement 92.8% (95% CI: 87.1%-98.5%) than secondary placed implants (86.4%, 95% CI: 77.0%-95.8%). Primary implant placement is accompanied by earlier prosthetic rehabilitation after tumor surgery. CONCLUSION: Patients with oral cancer greatly benefit from, preferably primary placed, dental implants in their prosthetic rehabilitation. The combination of tumor surgery with implant placement in native mandibular bone should be provided as standard care.

Prosthodontic rehabilitation of head and neck cancer patients-Challenges and new developments.

Head and neck cancer treatment can severely alter oral function and aesthetics, and reduce quality of life. The role of maxillofacial prosthodontists in multidisciplinary treatment of head and neck cancer patients is essential when it comes to oral rehabilitation and its planning. This role should preferably start on the day of first intake. Maxillofacial prosthodontists should be involved in the care pathway to shape and outline the prosthetic and dental rehabilitation in line with the reconstructive surgical options. With the progress of three-dimensional technology, the pretreatment insight in overall prognosis and possibilities of surgical and/or prosthetic rehabilitation has tremendously increased. This increased insight has helped to improve quality of cancer care. This expert review addresses the involvement of maxillofacial prosthodontists in treatment planning, highlighting prosthodontic rehabilitation of head and neck cancer patients from start to finish.