Head & neck · 2025
Dental Rehabilitation After Bone Mandibular Reconstruction for Head and Neck Cancer: A GETTEC Multicenter Study.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Roussel Lise-Marie, Elaldi Roxane, Anquetil Marine, Lévêque Emilie, Babin Emmanuel, Bozec Alexandre, Lasne Cardon Audrey, Boulay Alexandre, Le Guyader Maud, Thureau Sébastien, Brenet Esteban, Clatot Florian
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The microvascular bone free flap (MBFF) is the preferred reconstruction after mandibular resection as it facilitates secondary dental rehabilitation.
METHODS: In this multicenter study, patients were included if treated between January 2017 and January 2022 for head and neck cancer with MBFF reconstruction.
RESULTS: Of the 487 identified patients, 104 patients were included. Median follow-up was 49 months. 61 patients (59%) had no dental rehabilitation. Of the 43 rehabilitated patients, 81% had a conventional prosthesis and 19% an implant-supported prosthesis. Neither the number of osteotomies, nor the complexity of the reconstruction, nor the radiotherapy, were statistically associated with dental rehabilitation. Only the absence of a dental specialist in the center (p = 0.04) and a number of one or fewer native mandibular teeth (p = 0.05) were significantly associated with no dental rehabilitation in multivariate analysis.
CONCLUSION: The rate of dental rehabilitation is still insufficient. The presence of a dental specialist is essential.
METHODS: In this multicenter study, patients were included if treated between January 2017 and January 2022 for head and neck cancer with MBFF reconstruction.
RESULTS: Of the 487 identified patients, 104 patients were included. Median follow-up was 49 months. 61 patients (59%) had no dental rehabilitation. Of the 43 rehabilitated patients, 81% had a conventional prosthesis and 19% an implant-supported prosthesis. Neither the number of osteotomies, nor the complexity of the reconstruction, nor the radiotherapy, were statistically associated with dental rehabilitation. Only the absence of a dental specialist in the center (p = 0.04) and a number of one or fewer native mandibular teeth (p = 0.05) were significantly associated with no dental rehabilitation in multivariate analysis.
CONCLUSION: The rate of dental rehabilitation is still insufficient. The presence of a dental specialist is essential.