Survival Rates of Dental Implants in Irradiated Patients with Extraoral Maxillofacial Prosthesis: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the effect of the location of implants, radiation therapy, and soft tissue reactions on survival rates of dental implants in the extraoral maxillofacial prosthesis. Materials and methods: An electronic search was conducted for articles published in English, listed with Medline (PubMed) and Embase from 2000 to till date. The focused question was “Is there any effect of location, radiation, and soft tissue reactions on survival rates of dental implants in extraoral maxillofacial prosthesis?” The selection of articles was done according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2009 guidelines. The risk of bias was checked using the Newcastle–Ottawa scale. Results: The investigation identified a total of 10,800 titles of studies with extraoral maxillofacial prostheses, out of which 17 studies were included in this review based on the selection criteria. It was seen that there was an increase in the failure rate of dental implants in the extraoral maxillofacial prosthesis in presence of radiation. The mean survival rate of implants in nonirradiated areas was 82.6% whereas that of irradiated areas was 77.72%, suggesting a lower survival rate in irradiated areas. Conclusion: Radiation therapy does affect the survival rates of implants, but they are not a contraindication. Implant placement in such cases must be calculated and planned carefully, with special emphasis on the quality of bone, location of implants and their characteristics, compliance, and manual abilities of the patients, and their health status. How to cite this article: Shah D, Chauhan C, Mehta M, <i>et al.</i> Survival Rates of Dental Implants in Irradiated Patients with Extraoral Maxillofacial Prosthesis: A Systematic Review. Int J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2022;12(4):198-205.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".