ArticleAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2026
Dental implant rehabilitation after jaw tumor resection: a mini-review of protocols and quality of life across treatment modalities.
Article in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The rehabilitation of patients following jaw tumor resection presents significant challenges, with the goal of restoring both function and quality of life (QoL). Dental implant-supported prostheses are a cornerstone of this rehabilitation, yet the optimal protocol is not universal. This mini-review synthesizes recent evidence to analyze how the initial oncological treatment modality dictates the pathway, challenges, and outcomes of implant therapy. Materials and methods: A narrative review was conducted. A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed and Scopus for publications from 2020 to 2025, using MeSH terms and keywords related to jaw neoplasms, dental implants, and rehabilitation. Clinical studies, reviews, and case series focusing on implant-supported outcomes and QoL in adults were included. A thematic, tripartite analysis was employed to organize findings based on treatment: surgery alone (Group 1), surgery with adjuvant chemo-radiotherapy (Group 2), and segmental resection with fibula free flap reconstruction (Group 3). Results: The analysis revealed a gradient of complexity. Group 1 patients, with non-irradiated bone, achieve high implant success rates (>95%) and rapid QoL improvement through delayed placement with adjunctive grafting. Group 2 patients face compromised biology; protocols mandate a 12-24 month delay post-radiotherapy to mitigate osteoradionecrosis risk, and lifelong management of xerostomia is critical. Yet, implants still provide substantial functional gains despite lower survival rates (85-92%). Group 3 patients undergo complex, staged rehabilitation, where virtual surgical planning enables prosthetically driven implant placement into the fibula flap, yielding excellent long-term survival and transformative functional and psychosocial outcomes despite anatomical challenges. Conclusion: Successful implant rehabilitation is highly feasible but necessitates a tailored approach defined by the oncological treatment legacy. A one-size-fits-all strategy is ineffective. The indispensable role of a multidisciplinary team in planning and execution is emphasized to navigate the distinct challenges of each cohort, ultimately restoring not just dentition but a dignified and functional QoL.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.