Abstract

After surgical treatment for oral cancer, patients often are affected by disfigurements, thwarted function, and psychological and social problems. Prosthodontic rehabilitation has the aim of restoring function and esthetics. Implant-supported prosthodontic rehabilitation is useful for patients with compromised residual ridge anatomy, such as patients with oral cancer following treatment. This clinical report describes the rehabilitation of a patient after mandibular resection with a milled bar-supported implant overdenture. Overdenture achieves best hygienic maintenance, easy soft tissue follow-up, and low realization cost. This rehabilitation increased prosthesis retention and stability and improved oral conditions and the patient's quality of life.

Introduction

Oral tumors represent 2.5% of all malignant tumors.1 Surgical therapy for oral tumors results in compromised residual alveolar ridge anatomy and function. Difficulties are more widespread when the mandible is involved, owing to the tongue.2 Patients can be affected by face asymmetry, disfigurement, swallowing, speech impairment, and neuroapraxia35; they often have psychological and social problems.28 The aforementioned complications can be influenced also by radiotherapy.9 

After tumor excision, hard and soft tissue defects can be corrected.2 Sometimes, even after this treatment, it is not possible to rehabilitate patients with a conventional prosthesis.4,10,11 After their introduction into dental practice, titanium implant–supported prostheses had a favorable impact on the treatment of patients with adverse alveolar ridge anatomy1214; implants made it possible to increase prosthesis retention and stability, with positive psychological results (when compared with conventional prostheses).7,1517 Also, oncologic patients after tumor excision have compromised ridge anatomy, and they need implants to enhance prosthesis stability. Today, the use of implant-supported prostheses (fixed or removable) is approved for patients after surgical therapy for oral tumors, and they have been shown to improve indirectly the patient's quality of life.2,18,19 Studies report success rates ranging between 64% and 100% for implants in patients with oral tumor; however, these numbers reflect implants positioned within bone grafts as well.7,20 

This clinical report describes the rehabilitation of a patient after mandibular resection with a milled bar-supported implant overdenture, with implants positioned in the residual mandibular ridge and avoidance of bone grafting.

Clinical Report

In September 2004, a 75-year-old man came to the School of Dentistry Clinical Building of the University of Ferrara (Italy). He came for evaluation of anterior postsurgical mandibular hard and soft tissue defects resulting from therapy for oral carcinoma received in 2002. He did not receive radiotherapy. He reported lip and chin paresthesias without motor deficits, a mild difficulty in speech, and an inability to use his conventional prosthesis because of instability and extreme pressure on soft tissue.

Facial examination revealed vertical and horizontal deficiencies with loss of the vertical occlusion dimension (Figures 1 and 2). Oral examination showed mandibular and maxillary total edentulism, with keratinized tissue and an alveolar ridge defect of the mandibular anterior region (Figure 3). The patient did not undergo reconstructive surgery of the hard or soft tissues, during tumor resection or after.

Figures 1–2

Figure 1. Frontal aspect of patient before rehabilitation. Figure 2. Lateral aspect of patient before rehabilitation.

Figures 1–2

Figure 1. Frontal aspect of patient before rehabilitation. Figure 2. Lateral aspect of patient before rehabilitation.

Figures 3–7

Figure 3. Clinical aspect of intraoral mandibular anterior region (hard and soft tissue defect is visible). Figure 4. Coping transfer positioned over four implants for mandibular impression. Figure 5. Both milled titanium bars positioned over implants on each side. Figure 6. Maxillary and mandibular prosthesis. Figure 7. Radiographic control of bone height around implants after 30 months.

Figures 3–7

Figure 3. Clinical aspect of intraoral mandibular anterior region (hard and soft tissue defect is visible). Figure 4. Coping transfer positioned over four implants for mandibular impression. Figure 5. Both milled titanium bars positioned over implants on each side. Figure 6. Maxillary and mandibular prosthesis. Figure 7. Radiographic control of bone height around implants after 30 months.

With consideration of the patient's health and expectations, an implant-supported overdenture with two individual milled bars and a titanium framework was planned as a rehabilitative option for the mandible (reported to be more suitable than a fixed prosthesis for patients with oral tumor).3,4 Overdenture advantages include improved hygienic maintenance of the resin body and implants, easy soft tissue examination for tumor follow-up, and low production and management costs.3,4 

After a radiologic study of the right and left residual mandibular alveolar ridges, four MK III TiUnite implants (Nobel Biocare, Goteborg, Sweden) were inserted (two on each side) with a submerged technique; implants positioned in the right and left areas were 3.75 mm in diameter and 10 and 11 mm in length. Long-term rehabilitation success and patient comfort are influenced by the presence of a stable mucous marginal barrier around the implants.21 Submerged technique was chosen to achieve the best keratinized tissue healing. After 4 months, healing abutments were connected.

Mandibular and maxillary first impressions were performed with irreversible hydrocolloid (Hydrogum 5, Zhermack, Badia Polesine, Italy) and Schreinemakers trays (Schreinemakers System, US patent 5190457). Second impressions were taken with individual acrylic resin trays, to provide close contact with alveolar and peri-implant tissues. The mandibular tray was filled with wax (Moyco Beauty Pink Wax X Hard, Miltex Inc, York, Pa) in the anterior region, to avoid any compression of this scarred area. The mandibular impression was taken with an open resin tray, four copings (Nobel Biocare) (Figure 4) and polyether (Impregum, 3M Espes, St Paul, Minn). The maxillary impression was taken with zinc-eugenol oxide paste (Luralite, Kerr, Orange, Calif).

Two denture bases were done using diagnostic casts to clinically record vertical and horizontal dimensions (Candulor Instrument Set, Candulor, Wangen, Switzerland). Afterward, the anterior (TCR Resin Fiosioset, Candulor) and posterior teeth (Condyloform Resin Set, Candulor) were arranged on denture bases to test esthetics, phonetics, and mobility.

With cast analysis, the space was evaluated to construct two mandibular titanium milled bars (a bar on the right side and a bar on the left side) linked to the titanium framework with friction devices (Figure 5). Framework and bars were tested, and prosthetic bodies were molded. After clinical adjustments were made, the prosthesis was delivered to the patient with home hygiene instruction (Figure 6).

Traditionally, overdenture retention systems consist of different single attacks or bar attachments connecting two or more implants.22,23 In the clinical case examined, when defect position and width were considered, the single bar attachment was not viable. Two bars were constructed to avoid any compression of the anterior region and to make hygienic maintenance easier for the patient.24 Two milled bars provided stability to the prosthetic body. The framework directly received implant support, and the bar's design was opposed to rotational and lateral prosthesis dislocation.2527 The result was a very rigid structure.

Clinical controls were done after 7 and 14 days, and after 3 and 6 months. At 6 months, function, phonetic, and esthetic improvement was shown. Clinical controls were done after 12, 18, 24, and 30 months. Clinical examinations showed absence of pain, swelling, soft tissue infection, or discomfort. Radiographs showed bone stability around the implants (Figure 7), according to the criteria in the literature on implant success. The patient was very happy and satisfied.

Discussion and Conclusions

After surgical therapy, patients with oral tumor can have disfigurement, compromised mastication, and swallowing and speech impairment, especially if the mandible is involved.

In the clinical case examined here, the wide area of tumor resection and the choice not to proceed with reconstructive surgery influenced the oral situation of the patient in a conclusive way.

Because of the defect present in this case, only a removable prosthesis with a wide resin body improved esthetics and phonetics. On the other hand, the wide loss of hard and soft tissues made it impossible to rehabilitate the patient with a conventional prosthesis because of excessive pressure on the anterior region and instability.

The best therapeutic choice in this and similar cases consists of an implant-supported overdenture. For this patient, insertion of implants in the residual alveolar ridge avoided further reconstructive surgery (making treatment less invasive), but implant dimension and position were restricted to the height and width of the residual ridge.

Four implants were placed and connected to two milled bars. Such a design provided a rigid anchorage system, resulting in reduced rotational movement and improved stability.26,28 This feature was considered particularly important for rehabilitating a patient with a large portion of mucosa that cannot be compressed. Furthermore, such a prosthesis shows a lower rate of prosthodontic complications (such as adjustment and matrix activation).28,29 Problems connected to bars have to be considered. Each milled bar needs a wide vertical height for construction (in this clinical case, it was present). Each implant occlusal loading is not predictable. Owing to these problems, 6 months of follow-up is needed to confirm rehabilitation success and osseointegration.

Note

Presented at 1st Autumn Milan EXPO, Milan, Italy, November 2007.

References

References
1
Ragin
,
C. C. R.
,
F.
Modugno
, and
S. M.
Gollin
.
The epidemiology and risk factors of head and neck cancer: a focus on human papillomavirus.
J Dent Res
2007
.
86
:
104
114
.
2
Müller
,
F.
,
M.
Schädler
,
U.
Wahlmann
, and
J. P.
Newton
.
The use of implant-support prostheses in the functional and psychosocial rehabilitation of tumor patients.
Int J Prosthodont
2004
.
17
:
512
517
.
3
Garrett
,
N.
,
E. D.
Roumanas
, and
K. E.
Blackwell
.
Efficacy of conventional and implant-supported mandibular resection prostheses: study overview and treatment outcomes.
J Prosthet Dent
2006
.
96
:
13
24
.
4
Roumanas
,
E. D.
,
N.
Garrett
, and
K. E.
Blackwell
.
Masticatory and swallowing threshold performances with conventional and implant-supported prostheses after mandibular fibula free-flap reconstruction.
J Prosthet Dent
2006
.
96
:
289
297
.
5
McGhee
,
M.
,
S. J.
Stern
,
D.
Callan
,
K.
Shewmake
, and
T.
Smith
.
Osseointegrated implants in the head and neck cancer patient.
Head Neck Surg
1997
.
19
:
659
665
.
6
Oelgiesser
,
D.
,
L.
Liran
,
B.
Shlomo
, and
D.
Schwartz-Arad
.
Rehabilitation of an irradiated mandible after mandibular resection using implant/tooth supported fixed prosthesis: a clinical report.
J Prosthet Dent
2004
.
91
:
310
314
.
7
Chiapasco
,
M.
,
S.
Abati
,
G.
Ramundo
,
A.
Rossi
,
E.
Romeo
, and
G.
Vogel
.
Behaviour of implants in bone grafts or free flaps after tumor resection.
Clin Oral Implants Res
2000
.
11
:
66
75
.
8
Moroi
,
H. H.
,
K.
Okimoto
, and
Y.
Terada
.
The effect of an oral prosthesis on the quality of life for head and neck cancer patients.
J Oral Rehabil
1999
.
26
:
265
273
.
9
Rogers
,
S. N.
,
D.
McNally
,
M.
Mahmoud
,
M. F.
Chan
, and
G. M.
Humphris
.
Psychologic response of the edentulous patient after primary surgery for oral cancer: a cross-sectional study.
J Prosthet Dent
1999
.
82
:
317
321
.
10
Sekine
,
J.
,
K.
Sano
,
H.
Ikeda
, and
T.
Inokuchi
.
Rehabilitation by means of osseointegrated implants in oral cancer patients with about four to six years follow up.
J Oral Rehabil
2006
.
33
:
170
174
.
11
Taira
,
Y.
,
J.
Sekine
,
T.
Sawase
, and
M.
Atsuta
.
Implant-retained overdenture following hemiglossectomy: a ten-year clinical case report.
J Oral Rehabil
2006
.
33
:
313
315
.
12
Branemark
,
P. I.
,
B. O.
Hansson
, and
R.
Adell
.
Osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw: experience from a 10-year period.
Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg
1977
.
16(suppl)
:
1
132
.
13
Naert
,
I.
,
M.
Quirynen
, and
G.
Theuniers
.
Prosthetic aspects of osseointegrated fixtures supporting overdentures: a 4-year report.
J Prosthet Dent
1991
.
65
:
671
680
.
14
Mericske-Stern
,
R.
and
G. A.
Zarb
.
Overdentures: an alternative implant methodology for edentulous patients.
Int J Prosthodont
1993
.
6
:
203
208
.
15
Riediger
,
D.
Restoration of masticatory function by microsurgically revascularized iliac crest bone graft using endosseous implants.
Plast Reconstr Surg
1988
.
81
:
861
877
.
16
Cibirka
,
R. M.
,
M.
Razzoog
, and
B. R.
Lang
.
Critical evaluation of patient responses to dental implant therapy.
J Prosthet Dent
1997
.
78
:
574
581
.
17
Allen
,
P. F.
,
A. S.
McMillan
, and
D.
Walshaw
.
A patient-based assessment of implant-stabilized and conventional complete dentures.
J Prosthet Dent
2001
.
85
:
141
147
.
18
Weischer
,
T.
and
C.
Mohr
.
Implant-supported mandibular telescopic prostheses in oral cancer patients: an up to 9-year retrospective study.
Int J Prosthodont
2001
.
14
:
329
334
.
19
Esposito
,
M.
,
J. M.
Hirsch
,
U.
Lekholm
, and
P.
Thomsen
.
Biological factors contributing to failures of osteointegrated implants: aetiopathogenesis.
Eur J Oral Sci
1998
.
106
:
527
551
.
20
Kovacs
,
A. F.
The fate of osseointegrated implants in patients following oral cancer surgery and mandibular reconstruction.
Head Neck
2000
.
22
:
111
.
21
Adell
,
R.
,
U.
Lekholm
,
B.
Rockler
, and
P. I.
Branemark
.
Marginal tissue reaction at osseointegrated implants: a 3-year longitudinal prospective study.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg
1986
.
15
:
39
52
.
22
Donotsky
,
O.
Osseointegrated dental implants with ball attachments supporting overdentures in patients with mandibular alveolar ridge atrophy.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants
1993
.
8
:
162
166
.
23
Jennings
,
K. J.
and
P.
Lilly
.
Bar-retained overdentures for implants—technical aspects.
J Prosthet Dent
1992
.
68
:
380
384
.
24
Sadowsky
,
S. J.
The implant-supported prosthesis for the edentulous arch: design considerations.
J Prosthet Dent
1997
.
78
:
28
33
.
25
Ercoli
,
C.
,
G. N.
Graser
,
R. H.
Tallents
, and
M. E.
Hagan
.
Alternative procedure for making a metal suprastructure in a milled bar implant-supported overdenture.
J Prosthet Dent
1998
.
80
:
253
258
.
26
Galindo
,
D. F.
The implant-supported milled-bar mandibular overdenture.
J Prosthondont
2001
.
10
:
46
51
.
27
Hebel
,
K. S.
,
D.
Galindo
, and
R.
Dajjar
.
Implant position record and implant position cast: minimizing errors, procedures and patient visits in the fabrication of the milled-bar prosthesis.
J Prosthet Dent
2000
.
83
:
107
116
.
28
Krennmair
,
G.
,
M.
Krainhöfner
, and
E.
Piehslinger
.
Implant-supported mandibular overdentures retained with a milled bar: a retrospective study.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants
2007
.
22
:
987
994
.
29
Krennmair
,
G.
,
M.
Krainhöfner
, and
E.
Piehslinger
.
The influence of bar design (round versus milled bar) on prosthodontic maintenance of mandibular overdentures supported by 4 implants: a 5-year prospective study.
Int J Prosthodont
2008
.
21
:
514
520
.

Author notes

Renata Vecchiatini, DDS, Nicola Mobilio, DDS, and Demis Barbin, DDS, are resident doctors, Santo Catapano, DMD, is associate professor of prosthodontics, and Giorgio Calura, DMD, is chief, Dental Clinic, and professor of odontostomatological disease at the University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy. Address correspondence to Dr Vecchiatini at Via Comacchio 353, 44100 Ferrara, Italy. (e-mail: vccrnt@ unife.it)