Patients with oral tumors. Part 1: Prosthetic rehabilitation following tumor resection.

The present study reports on the surgical and prosthodontic rehabilitation of 46 patients, 31 male and 15 female, after resection of oral tumors. The treatment was carried out from 2004 to 2007 at the Department of Prosthodontics, University of Bern, with a follow-up time of 3 to 6 years. The average age at diagnosis was 54 years. 76% of all tumors were squamous cell carcinoma, followed by adenocarcinoma. Resection of the tumors including soft and/or hard tissues was performed in all patients. 80% of them additionally underwent radiotherapy and 40% chemotherapy. A full block resection of the mandible was perfomed in 23 patients, and in 10 patients, the tumor resection resulted in an oronasal communication. 29 patients underwent grafting procedures, mostly consisting of a free fibula flap transplant. To enhance the prosthetic treatment outcome and improve the prosthesis stability, a total of 114 implants were placed. However, 14 implants were not loaded because they failed during the healing period or the patient could not complete the final treatment with the prostheses. The survival rate of the implants reached 84.2% after 4 to 5 years. Many patients were only partially dentate before the tumors were detected, and further teeth had to be extracted in the course of the tumor therapy. Altogether, 31 jaws became or remained edentulous. Implants provide stability and may facilitate the adaptation to the denture, but their survival rate was compromised. Mostly, patients were fitted with removable prostheses with obturators in the maxilla and implant-supported complete dentures with bars in the mandible. Although sequelae of tumor resection are similar in many patients, the individual intermaxillary relations, facial morphology and functional capacity vary significantly. Thus, individual management is required for prosthetic rehabilitation.

Patients with oral tumors. Part 2: Quality of life after treatment with resection prostheses. Resection prosthetics: evaluation of quality of life.

In the present study, the oral health-related quality of life of 18 patients (13 men and 5 women) was evaluated using validated questionnaires as proposed by the European Organization of Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC). The patients belonged to a cohort of 48 patients, whose prosthetic treatment was performed during the years 2004-2007. In the course of tumor resection, 12 patients underwent graft surgery and 14 patients radiotherapy. One patient required a nasal epithesis since resection of the nose became necessary. Five patients underwent a full block resection of the mandible, and tumor resection in 3 patients resulted in a large oronasal communication. Prosthetic rehabilitation was performed in all patients, and the follow-up period with regular care covered a minimum of 3 years. Eleven patients received dental implants for better support and retention of the prostheses. In spite of compromised oral conditions, functional restrictions, and some difficulties with the prostheses, the answers to the questionnaire were quite positive. The majority judged their general health as good or even excellent. The subjective perception of the patients may contradict the objective view by the dentist. In fact, the individual patient's history and experience provide a better understanding of the impact of oral tumors on daily life. The overall assessment identified 4 items that were perceived as major problems by all patients: swallowing solid food, dry mouth, limited mouth opening, and appearance. Prosthetic rehabilitation has only a limited influence on such problems.

Prosthetic rehabilitation, implant survival and quality of life 2 to 5 years after resection of oral tumors.

BACKGROUND: After oral tumor resection, structural and functional rehabilitation by means of dental prostheses is complex, and positive treatment outcome is not always predictable. PURPOSE: The objective of the study was to report on oral rehabilitation and quality of life 2-5 years after resection of malignant oral tumors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data of 46 patients (57 ± 7 years) who underwent oral tumor surgery were available. More than 50% of tumors were classified T3 or T4. Open oro-nasal defects resulted in 12 patients and full mandibulary block resections in 23 patients. Comprehensive planning, implant placement, and prosthetic rehabilitation followed an interdisciplinary protocol. Analysis comprised tumor location, type of prostheses, implant survival, and quality of life. RESULTS: Because of advanced tumor status, resections resulted in marked alteration of the oral anatomy requiring complex treatment procedures. Prosthetic rehabilitation comprised fixed and removable prostheses, with 104 implants placed in 28 patients (60%). Early implant loss was high (13%) and cumulative survival rate of loaded implants was <90% after 5 years. Prosthetic plans had to be modified because of side effects of tumor therapy, complications with implants and tumor recurrence. The majority of patients rated quality of life favorable, but some experienced impaired swallowing, dry mouth, limited mouth opening, appearance, and soreness. CONCLUSIONS: Some local effects of tumor therapy could not be significantly improved by prosthetic rehabilitation leading to functional and emotional disability. Many patients had passed away or felt too ill to fill the questionnaires. This case series confirms the complex anatomic alterations after tumor resection and the need for individual treatment approaches especially regarding prosthesis design. In spite of disease-related local and general restrictions, most patients gave a positive assessment of quality of life.