Search

The study aimed to evaluate the survival and failure rate, in the short- and medium-term, in addition to its relationship with risk factors, in implants placed by postgraduate students of the Master of Medicine, Surgery, and Oral Implantology course from the University of Barcelona. The study was designed including 192 patients with 422 implants placed between 2015 and 2018. Variables of implant failure were evaluated and related. Failure was split into early failure and late failure. Qualitative data were compared using the chi-squared test, taking p ≤ 0.05 as a significant value. The comparison of quantitative variables was carried out using the Student's t-test for independent samples. The survival rate in a period of 6 months to 3 years was 97.87%. The mean age of the patients was (54.5 ± 13), and the largest number of implants were placed in the 51–60 age range. The failure rate was 2.13% (N = 9), 6 failed early and 3 failed after definitive prosthetic loading, with a p value < 0.0001. When comparing the failures according to their location in the anterior/posterior sector of the arch, the anterior sector showed statistically significant results (p = 0.027). Failed implants had a statistically significant relationship when they were placed in the anterior sector and were performed in the early stage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Stage of the disease at diagnosis has been recognized as one of the most important prognostic markers for oral cancer. Unfortunately, still two thirds of patients are diagnosed at an advanced stage of disease with a 5-year survival rate of 50% or less. Although the detection of oral cancer at an early stage is the most effective means to improve survival and reduce morbidity, in the past years, there has been little change in the diagnosis of oral cancer at early stages, which is believed to be a result of delays in diagnosis and treatment of oral cancer, among other independent factors. Following the Aarhus statement, developed in effort to standardize the design, methods and reporting of studies concerning time-intervals in early diagnosis research, the review assessed the causes that influence the patient, diagnosis and pre-treatment intervals in the pathway of time-to-treatment in oral cancer and its impact on survival. The purpose of this review was to identify and describe the causes that influence the time-intervals in the pathway of diagnosis and treatment of oral cancer and to assess its impact on prognosis and survival. The review was structured according to the recommendations of the Aarhus statement, considering original data from individual studies and systematic reviews that reported outcomes related to the patient, diagnostic and pre-treatment intervals. The patient interval is the major contributor to the total time-interval. Unawareness of signs and/or symptoms, denial and lack of knowledge about oral cancer are the major contributors to the process of seeking medical attention. The diagnostic interval is influenced by tumor factors, delays in referral due to higher number of consultations and previous treatment with different medicines or dental procedures and by professional factors such as experience and lack of knowledge related to the disease and diagnostic procedures. Patients with advanced stage disease, primary treatment with radiotherapy, treatment at an academic facility and transitions in care are associated with prolonged pre-treatment intervals. An emerging body of evidence supports the impact of prolonged pre-treatment and treatment intervals with poorer survival from oral cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A systematic review was conducted to answer the following PICO question: "Can patients diagnosed with oral lichen planus (OLP) be rehabilitated with dental implants as successfully as patients without OLP?". A systematic review of the literature was done following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statements to gather available and current evidence of oral lichen planus and its relationship with dental implants. The synthesis of results was performed using a Binary Random-Effects Model meta-analysis. Summary measures were odds ratios (ORs), frequencies, and percentages comparing the survival rate of dental implants placed in patients with OLP vs. those in patients without OLP. The electronic search yielded 25 articles, after removing the duplicated ones, 24 articles were selected. Out of the 24 articles, only 15 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. According to the results of the meta-analysis, with a total sample of 48 patients with OLP and 49 patients without OLP, an odds ratio of 2.48 (95% CI 0.34–18.1) was established, with an I2 value of 0%. According to the Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy (SORT) criteria, level A can be established to conclude that patients with OLP can be rehabilitated with dental implants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]