Prosthetic Rehabilitation, Implant Survival and Quality of Life 2 to 5 Years after Resection of Oral Tumors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: After oral tumor resection, structural and functional rehabilitation by means of dental prostheses is complex, and positive treatment outcome is not always predictable. PURPOSE: The objective of the study was to report on oral rehabilitation and quality of life 2-5 years after resection of malignant oral tumors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data of 46 patients (57 ± 7 years) who underwent oral tumor surgery were available. More than 50% of tumors were classified T3 or T4. Open oro-nasal defects resulted in 12 patients and full mandibulary block resections in 23 patients. Comprehensive planning, implant placement, and prosthetic rehabilitation followed an interdisciplinary protocol. Analysis comprised tumor location, type of prostheses, implant survival, and quality of life. RESULTS: Because of advanced tumor status, resections resulted in marked alteration of the oral anatomy requiring complex treatment procedures. Prosthetic rehabilitation comprised fixed and removable prostheses, with 104 implants placed in 28 patients (60%). Early implant loss was high (13%) and cumulative survival rate of loaded implants was <90% after 5 years. Prosthetic plans had to be modified because of side effects of tumor therapy, complications with implants and tumor recurrence. The majority of patients rated quality of life favorable, but some experienced impaired swallowing, dry mouth, limited mouth opening, appearance, and soreness. CONCLUSIONS: Some local effects of tumor therapy could not be significantly improved by prosthetic rehabilitation leading to functional and emotional disability. Many patients had passed away or felt too ill to fill the questionnaires. This case series confirms the complex anatomic alterations after tumor resection and the need for individual treatment approaches especially regarding prosthesis design. In spite of disease-related local and general restrictions, most patients gave a positive assessment of quality of life.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".