Peri-implant Parameters of Dental Implants Inserted in Prefabricated Microvascular Fibular Flaps: A Retrospective Study.

Abstract

Purpose: To assess the peri-implant and flap parameters of the prefabricated microvascular fibula flap and determine the dental implant survival rate.

Materials and methods: This retrospective study investigated a cohort of subjects who received prefabricated microvascular fibula flaps at two highly specialized tumor reconstruction centers. The subjects had all suffered atrophy or a large segmental defect of the jaws due to tumor resection or injury. Two independent surgeons determined the dental implant survival rate and assessed the peri-implant parameters and flap parameters during clinical follow-up.

Results: In total, 41 subjects were treated with a prefabricated fibula flap between 1999 and 2012. Of these, 17 subjects (10 male, 7 female) with a total of 62 dental implants were examined. The other 24 subjects were unavailable for assessment and had to be excluded. Ten of the 62 dental implants (16.1%) had to be removed due to peri-implantitis before the follow-up assessment. Follow-up assessments were performed at intervals ranging from 2 to 12 years (mean: 7.2 years) after fibula flap transplantation. The dental implant survival rate was found to be 83.9%. A total of 208 dental surfaces were assessed. Overall, 96% of all surfaces had a pocket depth (PD) of ≤ 4 mm and 4% had a pocket depth of > 5 mm. An attachment level (AL) of 3 mm was measured in 48.5% of implants and ≥ 5 mm was measured in 15.9% of implants. Dental implants with a PD > 4 mm showed a significantly higher plaque index (PI) (75%; P = .0057), papillary bleeding index (PBI) (62.5%; P = .0094), and radiologic bone loss (P = .0014) compared to dental implants with a PD ≤ 4 mm.

Conclusions: Reconstructive surgery using microvascular fibula flaps represents an alternative tool for oral rehabilitation in subjects suffering from a large segmental defect in the maxillary or mandibular bone compared to the conventional method. However, it appears that the different ossification processes that develop the fibula and the jawbones affect dental implant survival.