Ten-Year Experience in Oral Implant Rehabilitation of Cancer Patients: Treatment Concept and Proposed Criteria for Success

Between 1988 and 1997, 18 irradiated patients (group 1, 83 implants) and 22 nonirradiated patients (group 2, 92 implants) received resection of the cancer-involved mandible and floor of the mouth and subsequently underwent mandibular rehabilitation with endosseous implants. Implant-supported prostheses were placed in 26 patients, while 13 patients received implant-tissue-supported prostheses. Between 1988 and 1991, patients were restored with implant-tissue-supported prostheses (based on 2 to 4 implants). This strategy was later changed because of the development of denture-related lesions. Since 1992, group 1 patients have been restored exclusively with implant-supported prostheses on 5 to 6 implants; group 2 patients have been rehabilitated alternatively with implant-tissue-supported prostheses on 4 implants. Special criteria for determining the success of implant-supported maxillofacial prostheses were developed. With a mean follow-up period of 37 months, 160 implants (91%) were clinically osseointegrated. Both types of restorations provided sufficient oral rehabilitation. However, only completely implant-supported prostheses avoided soft tissue ulcers. The cumulative success rate was approximately 75% after 7 years for group 1 patients and about 86% after 10 years for group 2 patients. The success rates for implants placed after the change in strategy were approximately 86% (group 1) and 94% (group 2) after 5 years. Based on these experiences, it is suggested that irradiated patients should be restored with exclusively implant-supported prostheses, without any mucosal contact. Keywords: dental implants, irradiation, maxillofacial prosthetics, oral cancer patients, success criteria