Oral rehabilitation for patients with marginal and segmental mandibulectomy: A retrospective review of 111 mandibular resection prostheses.
Academic Article
Overview
abstract
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Treatment and timing considerations for patients seeking oral rehabilitation after marginal or segmental mandibulectomy (with osseous reconstruction) are not well understood. PURPOSE: The purpose of this retrospective review study was to report the type and timing of oral rehabilitation for mandibular defects without discontinuity and to describe additional treatment considerations for rehabilitation. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The records were reviewed of all patients who received a mandibular resection prosthesis after marginal mandibulectomy, marginal mandibulectomy with fasciocutaneous free-flap reconstruction, and segmental mandibulectomy with fibula free-flap reconstruction between 2000 and 2017 in the tertiary cancer care institution. Patients not treated by the Dental Service in the institution were excluded. The specific type of rehabilitation was noted, as was the time interval between primary surgery and prosthesis delivery. RESULTS: During the study period, 111 consecutive patients were treated by the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Dental Service for mandibular rehabilitation. Forty-three patients underwent marginal mandibulectomy, 9 patients underwent marginal mandibulectomy with fasciocutaneous free-flap reconstruction, and 59 patients underwent segmental mandibulectomy with fibula free-flap reconstruction. Most patients in all 3 groups received mandibular resection prostheses without the use of endosseous implants. Only 4 (8%) patients who had undergone marginal mandibulectomy underwent endosseous implant placement, all of which followed marginal mandibulectomy in anterior mandibular segments without free-flap reconstruction. Patients who underwent marginal mandibulectomy with fasciocutaneous free-flap reconstruction were only restored with removable mandibular resection prostheses, and none had endosseous implants. In patients who underwent segmental mandibulectomy, 13 (22%) were rehabilitated with endosseous implants. The majority in this cohort (>50%) received radiation therapy as part of their treatment. The median time to oral rehabilitation was 8 months after marginal mandibulectomy, 14 months after marginal mandibulectomy with fasciocutaneous free-flap reconstruction, and 12 months after segmental mandibulectomy with fibula free-flap reconstruction. CONCLUSIONS: Timing for oral rehabilitation may differ depending on the treatment modality followed for mandibular tumors in the patient with oral cancer. However, most patients in this cohort underwent rehabilitation with removable mandibular resection prostheses regardless of the timing of care. Endosseous implants were used infrequently, but research is needed to better understand their potential role and indication in the patient with oral cancer.
