Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

A pattern of care analysis: Prosthetic rehabilitation of head and neck cancer patients after radiotherapy.
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2020 Jun; 22(3):333-341.CI

Abstract

BACKGROUND

While some medical associations provide guidelines for the implant-prosthetic rehabilitation of head and neck cancer patients, the circulation and implementation in the everyday routine of practicing dentists remain unknown.

PURPOSE

To analyze patterns of care for the prosthetic rehabilitation of head and neck cancer patients after radiotherapy in German speaking countries.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An online survey consisting of 34 questions separated into three sections, (a) general inquiries, (b) treatment concepts, and (c) patient cases, was forwarded to university hospital departments for Prosthetic Dentistry and Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, and members of different medical associations. Statistical differences between groups were analyzed using chi-squared test (P < .05).

RESULTS

From May to October 2019, 118 participants completed the survey. The majority practiced in university hospitals, had more than 5 years of work experience, and reported to be involved in <10 post radiation prosthetic rehabilitation cases per year. Rehabilitation protocols involving dental implants were implemented by oral/oral- and maxillofacial surgeons and prosthetic dentists, while general dentists favored implant-free solutions. Xerostomia was recognized as a common problem for a successful prosthetic rehabilitation. The subsequent treatment choice with either fixed dental prostheses or removable dentures was divided among participants.

CONCLUSIONS

As treatment planning differed with regard to the participants' field of expertise and work environment, and most practitioners only handle a low number of cases, patients might benefit from centralization in larger institutes with a multidisciplinary structure. A high agreement between the practitioners' treatment concepts and the current state of research was observed. While the choice between a mucosa- or tooth-supported, and an implant-supported restoration depends on numerous individual factors, guidelines derived from longitudinal studies would enhance evidence-based treatment in this field.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Facial Plastic Surgery, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Facial Plastic Surgery, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.

Pub Type(s)

Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

32350989

Citation

Wiedenmann, Felicitas, et al. "A Pattern of Care Analysis: Prosthetic Rehabilitation of Head and Neck Cancer Patients After Radiotherapy." Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research, vol. 22, no. 3, 2020, pp. 333-341.
Wiedenmann F, Liebermann A, Probst F, et al. A pattern of care analysis: Prosthetic rehabilitation of head and neck cancer patients after radiotherapy. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2020;22(3):333-341.
Wiedenmann, F., Liebermann, A., Probst, F., Troeltzsch, M., Balermpas, P., Guckenberger, M., Edelhoff, D., & Mayinger, M. (2020). A pattern of care analysis: Prosthetic rehabilitation of head and neck cancer patients after radiotherapy. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research, 22(3), 333-341. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12912
Wiedenmann F, et al. A Pattern of Care Analysis: Prosthetic Rehabilitation of Head and Neck Cancer Patients After Radiotherapy. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2020;22(3):333-341. PubMed PMID: 32350989.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - A pattern of care analysis: Prosthetic rehabilitation of head and neck cancer patients after radiotherapy. AU - Wiedenmann,Felicitas, AU - Liebermann,Anja, AU - Probst,Florian, AU - Troeltzsch,Matthias, AU - Balermpas,Panagiotis, AU - Guckenberger,Matthias, AU - Edelhoff,Daniel, AU - Mayinger,Michael, Y1 - 2020/04/29/ PY - 2020/01/16/received PY - 2020/03/19/revised PY - 2020/03/31/accepted PY - 2020/5/1/pubmed PY - 2020/5/1/medline PY - 2020/5/1/entrez KW - head and neck cancer KW - implantology KW - multidisciplinary approach KW - patterns of care KW - prosthetic rehabilitation KW - radiotherapy KW - survey SP - 333 EP - 341 JF - Clinical implant dentistry and related research JO - Clin Implant Dent Relat Res VL - 22 IS - 3 N2 - BACKGROUND: While some medical associations provide guidelines for the implant-prosthetic rehabilitation of head and neck cancer patients, the circulation and implementation in the everyday routine of practicing dentists remain unknown. PURPOSE: To analyze patterns of care for the prosthetic rehabilitation of head and neck cancer patients after radiotherapy in German speaking countries. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An online survey consisting of 34 questions separated into three sections, (a) general inquiries, (b) treatment concepts, and (c) patient cases, was forwarded to university hospital departments for Prosthetic Dentistry and Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, and members of different medical associations. Statistical differences between groups were analyzed using chi-squared test (P < .05). RESULTS: From May to October 2019, 118 participants completed the survey. The majority practiced in university hospitals, had more than 5 years of work experience, and reported to be involved in <10 post radiation prosthetic rehabilitation cases per year. Rehabilitation protocols involving dental implants were implemented by oral/oral- and maxillofacial surgeons and prosthetic dentists, while general dentists favored implant-free solutions. Xerostomia was recognized as a common problem for a successful prosthetic rehabilitation. The subsequent treatment choice with either fixed dental prostheses or removable dentures was divided among participants. CONCLUSIONS: As treatment planning differed with regard to the participants' field of expertise and work environment, and most practitioners only handle a low number of cases, patients might benefit from centralization in larger institutes with a multidisciplinary structure. A high agreement between the practitioners' treatment concepts and the current state of research was observed. While the choice between a mucosa- or tooth-supported, and an implant-supported restoration depends on numerous individual factors, guidelines derived from longitudinal studies would enhance evidence-based treatment in this field. SN - 1708-8208 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/32350989/A_pattern_of_care_analysis:_Prosthetic_rehabilitation_of_head_and_neck_cancer_patients_after_radiotherapy L2 - https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12912 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -