Search

Objectives: To investigate how different types of dental prosthesis perform in patients with head and neck tumors. Materials and methods: In this retrospective clinical cohort study, the impact of different patient-related factors was analyzed as influencing factors on the survival probability of dental prosthesis using Kaplan–Meier estimate. For analysis, the dental prosthesis was divided into groups: group 1 (fixed dental prosthesis), group 2 (removable dental prosthesis), group 3 (implant-supported dental prosthesis), and group 4 (prostheses anchored using wrought wire clasps and obturators). The incidental aftercare measures were also evaluated. Results: Two hundred seventy-nine restorations were observed (mean observation: 2.7 ± 3.0 years, max.14.8 years) out of which 49 (17.6%) had to be replaced during the observation. After 5 years, 100% of group 1 restorations, 79.9% of group 2 restorations, 91.4% of group 3 restorations, and 30% of group 4 restorations were still functional. Four hundred eighty-eight dental implants were observed, of which 77 (15.8%) failed. Conclusions: Groups 1, 2, and 3 restorations showed good survival times after 5 years in function, whereas group 4 presented the worst survival times. Group 2 restorations showed the highest amount of necessary aftercare measures. Clinical relevance: The current investigation shows that groups 1, 2, and 3 restorations should be preferred in the prosthetic treatment planning of patients with head and neck tumors. A treatment with group 4 restorations should only be considered if no other prosthetic treatment is possible or as temporary treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The aim of this study was to retrospectively analyze the influence of a prophylaxis protocol of head and neck tumor (HNT) patients during and after intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). Material and method: In this 5-year retrospective study (2009-2013), 70 (m 55, f 15; age range 28-8 years; median 58.7 years) out of 248 HNT patients of the Clinic of Cranio-Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery at the University of Zurich, Switzerland, fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Parameters of investigation were the salivary flow rates, possible dental foci and the dental status, oral side effects of radiotherapy, the prophylaxis protocol, and patient's compliance to this protocol. The following time points before during and after IMRT (6 weeks) were analyzed: prior to IMRT, 2-4 weeks, 6 weeks and 3, 6, and 12 months after the onset of radiotherapy. Result: Unstimulated salivary flow rate, pH value of unstimulated salivary, and stimulated salivary flow rate showed a significant reduction over time ( p < 0.001). One year after IMRT, both unstimulated and stimulated salivary flow showed a statistically significant lower salivary flow. The number of caries-affected sites per patient was significantly higher for patients with low compliance to the prophylaxis protocol (mean: low compliance 1.36, high compliance 0.26). Almost 75 % of the evaluated patients suffered immediate gustatory change, and 47.1 % showed signs of radiostomatitis through IMRT. Conclusions: High compliance to the prophylaxis protocol during and after radiotherapy is a key factor for the reduction of radiation side effects on dental hard tissue. Clinical relevance: High compliance to a monitored prophylaxis program is crucial for patients after head and neck surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]