Evaluation of quality of life and masticatory function in patients treated with mandibular reconstruction followed by occlusal rehabilitation with dental implants: A preliminary report. Issue 6 (November 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Yusa, Kazuyuki; Yamanouchi, Hideyuki; Yoshida, Yukie; Ishikawa, Shigeo; Sakurai, Hiromasa; Iino, Mitsuyoshi
• Is Part Of: Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery, medicine, and pathology. Volume 29:Issue 6(2017)
• Page Start: 499
• Page End: 503
• Publication Date: 2017-11
• Subjects: Mandibular reconstruction -- Dental implant -- Masticatory function -- Quality of life; Mouth -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Face -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Maxilla -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Oral medicine -- Periodicals; Mouth -- Diseases -- Pathogenesis -- Periodicals; Surgery, Oral -- Periodicals; Oral Medicine -- Periodicals; Pathology, Oral -- Periodicals; Face -- Surgery; Maxilla -- Surgery; Mouth -- Diseases -- Pathogenesis; Mouth -- Surgery; Oral medicine; Electronic journals -- Sciences; Electronic journals -- Medicine; Periodicals; 617.522059
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ajoms.2017.06.004
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2212-5566

Abstract

Abstract: Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes of prosthetic rehabilitation using dental implants in patients with mandibular reconstruction after mandible tumor ablation based on QOL and masticatory function. Materials and methods: This study included 12 patients who had undergone mandibular reconstruction and occlusal rehabilitation with dental implants. Five cases had hemi mandibular defects, 7 cases had segmental mandibular defects, and 1 case had marginal resection. A total of 45 implants were placed in the mandible (27 implants placed in reconstructed bone and 18 implants placed in residual bone). Results: The implant survival rates of implants placed in reconstructed bone and residual bone were 92.6% and 100%, respectively with an average follow-up of 46.08 ± 15.03 months. Four patients received an implant-retained bridge, and 8 patients received removable implant-supported dentures. Postoperative quality of life (QOL) was evaluated by the OHIP-14 and masticatory function questionnaires. In nonmalignant cases, there were significant improvement in the domain of functional limitation. And functional limitation, psychological discomfort, physical disability and psychological disability were significantly improved in malignant cases. Masticatory function scores were significantly higher after dental implant prosthetic rehabilitation in malignant cases (before 17.50 ± 16.05, after 60.83 ± 19.08, p < 0.01). Conclusion: Mandibular reconstruction and dental implant prosthetic rehabilitation have contributed to improving patients' oral function and postoperative QOL.