A New Strategy for Patient-Specific Implant-Borne Dental Rehabilitation in Patients With Extended Maxillary Defects

Purpose of the StudyPatients undergoing ablative tumor surgery of the midface are faced with functional and esthetic issues. Various reconstructive strategies, such as implant-borne obturator prostheses or microvascular tissue transfer, are currently available for dental rehabilitation. The present study shows the first follow-up of patients treated with patient-specific implants (IPS Implants® Preprosthetic) for the rehabilitation of extended maxillary defects following ablative surgery.Patients and MethodsAll patients treated with patient specific implants due to postablative maxillary defects were included. 20 implants were placed in the 19 patients (bilateral implants were placed in one of the cases). In 65.75% of the cases, resection was performed due to squamous cell carcinoma. In addition to the primary stability, the clinical implant stability, soft tissue management, successful prosthodontic restoration, and complications were evaluated at a mean follow-up period of 26 months.ResultsAll patient-specific implants showed primary stability and were clinically stable throughout the observation period. Definitive prosthodontic restorations were performed in all patients. No implant loosening was observed. Major complications occurred only in previously irradiated patients with insufficient soft tissue conditions (p = 0.058). Minor complications such as exposure of the underlying framework or mucositis were observed, but they never led to failure of restorations or implant loss.ConclusionsTreatment of postablative maxillary defects with patient-specific implants offers a safe alternative with predictable results for full and rapid dental rehabilitation, avoiding time-consuming augmentation procedures and additional donor-site morbidity.

Comparison of the Accuracy and Clinical Parameters of Patient-Specific and Conventionally Bended Plates for Mandibular Reconstruction

ObjectivesThis retrospective study compared two mandibular reconstruction procedures—conventional reconstruction plates (CR) and patient-specific implants (PSI)—and evaluated their accuracy of reconstruction and clinical outcome.MethodsOverall, 94 patients had undergone mandibular reconstruction with CR (n = 48) and PSI (n = 46). Six detectable and replicable anatomical reference points, identified via computer tomography, were used for defining the mandibular dimensions. The accuracy of reconstruction was assessed using pre- and postoperative differences.ResultsIn the CR group, the largest difference was at the lateral point of the condyle mandibulae (D2) -1.56 mm (SD = 3.8). In the PSI group, the largest difference between preoperative and postoperative measurement was shown at the processus coronoid (D5) with +1.86 mm (SD = 6.0). Significant differences within the groups in pre- and postoperative measurements were identified at the gonion (D6) [t(56) = -2.217; p = .031 <.05]. In the CR group, the difference was 1.5 (SD = 3.9) and in the PSI group -1.04 (SD = 4.9). CR did not demonstrate a higher risk of plate fractures and post-operative complications compared to PSI.ConclusionFor reconstructing mandibular defects, CR and PSI are eligible. In each case, the advantages and disadvantages of these approaches must be assessed. The functional and esthetic outcome of mandibular reconstruction significantly improves with the experience of the surgeon in conducting microvascular grafts and familiarity with computer-assisted surgery. Interoperator variability can be reduced, and training of younger surgeons involved in planning can be reaching better outcomes in the future.