Search

Background: Facial transplantation (FT) provides advanced solutions for severe facial defects by incorporating complex tissues such as bone, skin, oral mucosa and nerves. Oral health plays a critical role in FT, impacting both functional outcomes and transplant prognosis. Despite its importance, literature on oral health in FT recipients remains sparse., Methods: This systematic review adhered to PRISMA guidelines. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and CENTRAL for studies on oral health in FT patients up to August 4, 2024. Eligible studies were evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and Level of Evidence (LOE). Data extracted included study design, general information on FT, patient demographics, oral examination techniques, and outcomes., Results: Out of 6,984 articles reviewed, 19 met the inclusion criteria, all consisting of case reports or case series involving 48 FT cases. Of these, 25 cases provided relevant oral health and rehabilitation data. All studies showed a LOE of IV, with an average NOS score of 4.3 ± 0.5. Most FT cases involved male recipients (n = 20, 80%), while the majority of FTs were conducted in the United States (n = 10, 40%) and France (n = 7, 28%). Oral mucosa biopsy was the most common examination method (n = 11, 44%). Malocclusion was reported in 48% (n = 12) of cases, with revision surgeries occurring in 36% (n = 9). Post-FT dental treatments included tooth extractions (n = 7, 28%), fillings (n = 3, 12%), and endodontic treatments (n = 2, 8%). Dental implants were placed in 32% (n = 8) of cases, with one case (4%) reporting failed osseointegration., Conclusion: Routine oral health assessments are essential for FT patients to prevent complications and improve clinical outcomes. However, there is a lack of high-quality research on oral health in FT recipients, underscoring the need for further studies to establish standardized care protocols., Clinical Relevance: This review emphasizes the urgent need for standardized oral health protocols in FT patients to minimize infection risks and optimize long-term transplant success and overall patient health., Competing Interests: Declarations. Ethical approval: Not Applicable. Informed consent: Not Applicable. Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests., (© 2025. The Author(s).)

Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the influence of vestibuloplasty on the clinical success and survival of dental implants in head and neck tumor patients., Materials and Methods: A retrospective single-center study was conducted. All patients received surgical therapy of a tumor in the head or neck and underwent surgical therapy and, if necessary, radiotherapy/radiochemotherapy. Patients with compromised soft tissue conditions received vestibuloplasty using a split thickness skin graft and an implant-retained splint. Implant survival and success and the influence of vestibuloplasty, gender, radiotherapy, and localizations were evaluated., Results: A total of 247 dental implants in 49 patients (18 women and 31 men; mean age of 63.6 years) were evaluated. During the observation period, 6 implants were lost. The cumulative survival rate was 99.1% after 1 year and 3 years and 93.1% after 5 years for patients without vestibuloplasty, compared to a survival and success rate of 100% after 5 years in patients with vestibuloplasty. Additionally, patients with vestibuloplasty showed significantly lower peri-implant bone resorption rates after 5 years (mesial: p = 0.003; distal: p = 0.001)., Conclusion: This study demonstrates a high cumulative survival and success rate of dental implants after 5 years in head and neck tumor patients, irrespective of irradiation. Patients with vestibuloplasty showed a significantly higher rate of implant survival and significantly lower peri-implant bone resorption after 5 years., Clinical Relevance: Vestibuloplasty should always be considered and applied if required by the anatomical situations to achieve high implant survival/success rates in head and neck tumor patients., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Objectives: Although many physicians in daily practice assume a connection between odontogenic infections and meteorological parameters, this has not yet been scientifically proven. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to evaluate the incidence of odontogenic abscess (OA) in relation to outdoor temperature and atmospheric pressure., Patients and Methods: An analysis of patients with an odontogenic abscess who presented at the emergency department within a period of 24 months was performed. Only patients who had not received surgical or antibiotic treatment prior to presentation and who lived in Berlin/Brandenburg were included. The OA incidence was correlated with the mean/maximum outdoor temperature and atmospheric pressure starting from 14 days before presentation. The statistical analysis was carried out using Poisson regression models with OA incidence as dependent and meteorological parameters as independent variables., Results: A total of 535 patients (mean age 39.4 years; range 1 to 95 years) with 538 cases were included. Of these, 227 were hospitalized. The most frequent diagnosis was a canine fossa abscess. A significant association between mean (p = 0.0153) and maximum temperature (p = 0.008) on the day of the presentation and abscess incidence was observed. Furthermore, a significant correlation between OA incidence and maximum temperature 2 days before presentation was found (p = 0.034). The deviation of the mean temperature on the day of the presentation from the monthly mean temperature had a significant influence (p = 0.021) on the incidence of OA. In contrast to temperature, atmospheric pressure had no significant influence on the incidence of OA., Conclusion: This study supports a relationship between the incidence of odontogenic abscess and outdoor temperature, but not atmospheric pressure. A significantly higher frequency of patients with an OA presented at our emergency department on days with (comparably) low and high outdoor temperatures. Furthermore, a significant correlation between incidence and maximum temperature 2 days before presentation was found., Clinical Relevance: The treatment of odontogenic infections has become a significant economic burden to public health care facilities. The results of this study may help to adapt the numbers of doctors/dentists on duty in relation to different weather conditions. In any case, it is an impetus to think outside the box.

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the long-term survival rate and potential influencing factors of dental implants and implant-retained prostheses in oral cancer patients who had undergone surgical tumor resection., Material and Methods: In the present study, 157 patients (95 females and 62 males with a mean age of 53.7 years) with 830 implants were included. All patients were diagnosed with a malignant tumor in the oral cavity and had undergone ablative surgery. In 55 patients (292 implants), the surgical procedure was followed by an additional radiochemotherapy (RCT) before implant placement. Nicotine users who received RCT were excluded from this study. Patients were clinically examined every 6 or 12 months according to a standard procedure., Results: Of the 830 examined implants, 450 were placed in the maxilla and 380 in the mandible. A total of 65 implants were lost, 36 in the maxilla and 29 in the mandible; of these, 42 implants (65%) were documented as lost due to the patient's death. The mean observation period was 121 months. The cumulative survival rate was 94.9% at 3 years and 92.5% at 7 years. With an observation period up to 20 years, the cumulative survival rate remained constant after 11 years with 90.8%. Age, gender, and localization (maxilla/mandible) of implants did not show any influence on the survival of the implants. However, radiochemotherapy was determined as a significant factor influencing the survival rate., Conclusions: The results of this study demonstrate that the survival rate of implants was significantly lower in oral cancer patients who had been treated by ablative surgery and additional radiochemotherapy than in patients without RCT. Since there is no significant difference in the mortality rate of patients with additional RCT compared to patients who underwent sole ablative surgery, the higher loss ratio is due to a late failure of osseointegration., Clinical Relevance: Dental implants in oral cancer patients who had been treated by ablative surgery show a high and steady cumulative survival rate after 11 years. Implant survival of patients with additional RCT is significantly lower. Non-smoking-irradiated patients seem to have a better implant survival.