Implant survival rate after oral cancer therapy: a review.

Eng. A.B. Growth Factors and Bone Regeneration Research Chair, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Oral Oncology (Impact Factor: 3.03). 11/2010; 46(12):854-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2010.10.004
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The overall impression regarding the success of dental implants (DI) in patients having undergone oral cancer therapy remains unclear. The aim of the present review study was to assess the implant survival rate after oral cancer therapy. Databases were explored from 1986 up to and including September 2010 using the following keywords in various combinations: "cancer", "chemotherapy", "dental implant", "oral", "osseointegration", "radiotherapy", "surgery" and "treatment". The eligibility criteria were: (1) original research articles; (2) clinical studies; (3) reference list of pertinent original and review studies; (4) intervention: patients having undergone radio- and chemotherapy following oral cancer surgery; and (5) articles published only in English. Twenty-one clinical studies were included. Results from 16 studies reported that DI can osseointegrate and remain functionally stable in patients having undergone radiotherapy following oral cancer surgery; whereas three studies showed irradiation to have negative effects on the survival of DI. Two studies reported that DI can osseointegrate and remain functionally stable in patients having undergone chemotherapy. It is concluded that DI can osseointegrate and remain functionally stable in patients having undergone oral cancer treatment.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We speculated that the long-term survival of narrow or conventional diameter (< 5mm) implants is higher than that of wide-diameter implants (≥ 5mm) when placed in posterior atrophic maxillae. The aim of this paper was to systematically review indexed literature regarding the influence of implant diameter on long-term survival of dental implants placed in posterior maxilla. The addressed focused question was “Does implant diameter influence long-term survival of dental implants placed in posterior maxilla?” Databases were searched from 1986 up to and including June 2014 using the following MeSH terms: “dental implants”, “dental implant-abutment design”, “maxilla” and “survival”. Review articles, case-reports, letters to the editor, unpublished data and studies published in languages other than English were excluded. The initial search yielded 51 studies. Scrutiny of the titles and abstracts reduced the number of clinical studies included in the present review to 19. In all studies, implants were placed in posterior atrophic maxilla of patients with age ranging between 37-60 years. Cylindrical and tapered implants were used in 12 and 3 studies, respectively. In all studies, threaded, rough-surfaced dental implants with diameters ranging between 3.0mm-5.5mm were used. In all studies, follow-up periods and cumulative survival rates ranged between 5-15 years and 80.5-100%, respectively. A well-designed surgical protocol, achievement of sufficient primary stability at the time of implant placement and pre- and postsurgical oral hygiene maintenance visits are critical factors that influence the long-term survival of dental implants placed in posterior atrophic maxilla. However, contribution of implant diameter in this regard seems secondary.
    Clinical Oral Investigations 10/2014; 19(1). · 2.29 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objectives: The aim of the present study was to review the pertinent literature with reference to the clinical efficacy of antibiotics in the treatment of peri-implantitis. Methods: To address the focused question 'Are locally and systemically delivered antibiotics useful in the treatment of peri-implantitis?' PubMed/Medline and Google-scholar databases were explored from 1992 until February 2013 using a combination of the following keywords: 'antibiotic,' 'dental implant,' 'inflammation,', 'peri-implantitis' and 'treatment'. Letters to the editor, case-reports and unpublished data were excluded. Results: Ten studies were included. In six studies, peri-implantitis was treated using a non-surgical approach (scaling and root planing), whereas in four studies, a surgical approach was adopted for treating peri-implantitis. In three studies systemic antibiotics were administered and in six studies locally delivered antibiotics were used for treatment. One study used the oral route for antibiotic delivery. In three studies, minocycline hydrochloride was locally delivered as an adjunctive therapy to non-surgical mechanical debridement of infected sites. Nine studies reported that traditional peri-implantitis treatment with adjunct antibiotic therapy reduces gingival bleeding, suppuration and peri-implant pocket depth. In one study, despite surgical debridement of infected sites and systemic antibiotic cover, nearly 40% of the implants failed to regain stability. There was no placebo or control group in eight out of the nine studies included. Conclusion: The significance of adjunctive antibiotic therapy in the treatment of peri-implantitis remains debatable.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The ideal management of peri-implant diseases focuses on infection control, detoxification of implant surfaces, regeneration of lost tissues and plaque control regimes via mechanical debridement (with or without raising a surgical flap).15, 16 However, a variety of other therapeutic modalities have also been proposed for the management of peri-implantitis. These treatment strategies encompass use of antiseptics and/or antibiotics, laser therapy, guided bone regeneration and photodynamic therapy.16-23 The aim of this article was to review indexed literature with reference to the various therapeutic interventions proposed for the management of peri-implant diseases.
    Dental Clinics of North America 08/2014;


Available from
Dec 7, 2014