Investigation of peri-implant status and risk variables for implant failure in body of maxilla after oral tumor surgery

Abstract

The aim of this study was to assess the peri-implant parameters and evaluate the clinical status with the survival of dental implants in body of maxilla after treatments of oral tumor. A follow-up examination included 27 patients who underwent the ablative tumor and (or) reconstructive surgery during a 5-year period. The follow-up protocol included clinical examination, radiological evaluation, and an interview using a standardized questionnaire. The reasons related to implant failure were studied by comparing the amount of failure with the value of marginal bone resorption, probing pocket depth, and plaque index using statistical t-test. The relationship between smoking and implant failure was analyzed statistically by chi-square test. The results showed among the 112 implants observed after implant loading, 29 have failed with the failure rate being 22.14 %. There was no significant correlation between the peri-implant status and the implant failure (P>0.05), however, the association of smoking and implant failure was statistically tested (P<0.05). It was suggested that the association of peri-implant status and implant failure in the maxilla after tumor surgery can’t be statistically tested, however smoking was still a mainly significant factor.

Keywords

oral tumor / peri-implant / maxilla

References

[1] BranemarkP. I., SvenssonB., van SteenbergheD.. Ten-year survival rates of fixed prostheses on four or six implants ad modum Branemark in full edentulism. Clin Oral Impl Res, 1995, 6: 227-231

[2] BuserD., Merickse-SternR., BernardJ. P., et al.. Long-term evaluation of nonsubmerged ITI implants. Part 1: 8-year life table analysis of a prospective multicenter study with 2359 implants. Clin Oral Impl Res, 1997, 8: 161-172

[3] DesjardinsR. P.. Prosthesis design for osseointegrated implants in the edentulous maxilla. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 1992, 7: 311-320

[4] QuigleyG. A., HeinJ. W.. Comparative cleaning efficiency of manual and power brushing. J Am Dent Assoc, 1962, 65: 26-32

[5] Million R, Cassisi N. Management of Head and Neck Cancer: a Multidisciplinary Approach. Philadelphia: 2nd eds. Lippincott, 1994

[6] CaoT. G., WeischerT., ZhouB.. Long-term observation of maxillary implants after oral cancer treatment. Acta Med Univ Sci Technol Huazhong (Chinese), 2003, 32(3): 316-319

[7] PericotJ., EscribaJ. M., ValdesA.. Survival evaluation of treatment modality in squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity and oropharynx. J Craniomaxillofac Surg, 2000, 28: 49-55

[8] AdellR., LekholmU., RocklerB.. Marginal tissue reactions at osseointegrated titanium fixtures (I). A 3-year longitudinal prospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofacial Surg, 1986, 15: 39-52

[9] BetzT., ReutherJ. F., BillJ.. Klinische Nachuntersuchung enossaler bone-lock Implantate unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der periimplantaren Gewebe. Eine Studie über 5 Jahre. Dtsch Z Mund Kiefer Gesichts Chir, 1995, 19: 35-40

[10] KovácsA.. The fate of osseointegrated implants in patients following oral cancer surgery and mandibular reconstruction. Head Neck, 2000, 22: 111-119

[11] FlemmingT. F., HöltjeW. J.. Periimplantäre Mukosa und Knochen bei Titanimplantaten. Z Zahnärztl Implantol, 1988, 4: 158-164

[12] BainC. A., MoyP. K.. The association between the failure of dental implants and cigarette smoking. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 1993, 8: 609-615

[13] De BruynH., CollaertB.. The effect of smoking on early implant failure. Clin Oral Implants Res, 1994, 5: 260-264