The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society

REVIEW ARTICLE
Year
: 2017  |  Volume : 17  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 109--119

Effectiveness of hyperbaric oxygen therapy in irradiated maxillofacial dental implant patients: A systematic review with meta-analysis


Darshana Nilesh Shah, Chirag Jasubhai Chauhan, Jenish Sureshbhai Solanki 
 Department of Prosthodontics, Crown and Bridge and Oral Implantology, Ahmedabad Dental College and Hospital, Gandhinagar, Gujarat, India

Correspondence Address:
Darshana Nilesh Shah
Department of Prosthodontics, Crown and Bridge and Oral Implantology, Ahmedabad Dental College and Hospital, Gandhinagar - 382 115, Gujarat
India

Abstract

The significantly higher implant failure rates in maxillofacial patients, undergoing radiotherapy, might be caused by the long-term effects of reduced vascularization compromising the implantation site. An extensive preclinical animal literature and a multitude of clinical reports suggest the use of hyperbaric oxygen (HBO) therapy as it can improve the tissue vascularity. Hence, it may increase the implant survival rate by enhancing osseointegration process in such patients. The objective of this systematic review was to investigate the effectiveness of HBO therapy on dental implant survival rate in irradiated maxillofacial patients who require prosthodontic rehabilitation. An electronic search without time restrictions was undertaken in April 2016 using databases: PubMed, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register. We also tried to contact the manufacturers and researchers in the field for necessary details. Clinical human studies, on irradiated maxillofacial dental implant patients, including randomized controlled trials (RCTs), prospective controlled trials, retrospective studies, and preliminary reports were included in the study. Data collection was carried out by two of the authors' independently. The titles and abstracts of all reports were screened for the study design and type of reported intervention; all the duplicates were removed. The data search yielded 62 titles, out of which 14 articles were selected for the study by the article filtration criteria: Title/abstract/full text. Data which were extracted by two authors with any disagreement were resolved by the third author, and a meta-analysis was done using binary random-effect model. The results show decreased implant failure rate in HBO group (9.21%) compared to non-HBO group (22.44%). The potential limitations of this study are amount of radiation doses used, period lasting from radiotherapy to the placement of the implants, and follow-up period which varies for every subject of the included study, which can affect the treatment outcome. Although there are many sensitive articles published about HBO, including a number of review papers, RCTs are still lacking. According to the statistical analysis, it can be concluded that preventive HBO therapy can reduce the risk of implant failures in irradiated patients by 1.21 (relative risk) with 95% confidence interval (P < 0.001). Hence, HBO can be the effective treatment protocol for the implant treatment in irradiated maxillofacial patients.



How to cite this article:
Shah DN, Chauhan CJ, Solanki JS. Effectiveness of hyperbaric oxygen therapy in irradiated maxillofacial dental implant patients: A systematic review with meta-analysis.J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2017;17:109-119


How to cite this URL:
Shah DN, Chauhan CJ, Solanki JS. Effectiveness of hyperbaric oxygen therapy in irradiated maxillofacial dental implant patients: A systematic review with meta-analysis. J Indian Prosthodont Soc [serial online] 2017 [cited 2019 Sep 18 ];17:109-119
Available from: http://www.j-ips.org/text.asp?2017/17/2/109/203193


Full Text



 Introduction



Description of the condition

Thorough knowledge and wide field of understanding of the etiologic and risk factors of the implant failure are necessary to decrease the implant failure rates. From the last few years, implants are more commonly used in maxillofacial oral cancer patients, so whether these irradiated patient in the head and neck region are more at risk of losing dental implants or not is still unclear. Reduced tissue healing capacity leads to osteoradionecrosis, necrotic bone exposure, and pathological fracture in response to tissue trauma; thus, with reduced healing ability and osteoradionecrosis in response to injury, the implant survival rate may be reduced for the maxillofacial oral cancer patients who have undergone radiotherapy treatment.[1],[2],[3],[4],[5],[6]

Description of the intervention

Hyperbaric oxygen (HBO) therapy and its effectiveness is still a controversial topic.[7] There are numerous studies reported for the usefulness of HBO for the treatment of osteoradionecrosis of different bone tissues. In addition to its usefulness in treating osteoradionecrosis, it may also prevent this condition. A randomized/prospective clinical trial using HBO and penicillin was carried out by Marx et al.[8] This trial demonstrated that HBO reduced the development of osteoradionecrosis after tooth removal and this reduction was statistically significant.[9]

HBO therapy can be performed in multiplace or monoplace chambers. Patient is kept in a pure 100% oxygen chamber under pressure of 1.5–3 atmosphere absolute.[10]

How the intervention might work?

HBO therapy increases the oxygen pressure, collagen production, and fibroblastic activity and creates a matrix for neovascularizations.[11] According to Johnsson, it also counteracts the negative effect of irradiation, stimulates the osseointegration, and improves the implant survival rate.[12]

Need to do this systematic review

This systematic review helps maxillofacial surgeon and prosthodontist to understand the evidence, to integrate the valid information, and to provide rational decision-making on the use of the HBO therapy for their patients. It will also help them in improving the dental implant survival rate and quality of life of such patients by providing long-term successful rehabilitation.

 Objective



The objective of the present review was to compare the implant failure rates for patients being irradiated or previously irradiated in the head and neck region and receiving HBO therapy versus irradiated patients and not receiving such therapy having follow up period of 1-2 years to 26 years.

 Materials and Methods



Criteria for considering studies for this review

Types of studies

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), prospective clinical trials, and retrospective studies.

Types of participants

Maxillofacial patients who have had radiotherapy and treated with dental implants for oral rehabilitation.

Types of intervention

HBO therapy compared with no HBO therapy.

Type of comparison

HBO group versus non-HBO group.

Types of outcome measures

Implant failure rates.

 Search Strategies



An electronic search without time restrictions was undertaken in April 2016 for clinical studies comparing the implant failure rates (O), in irradiated maxillofacial patients (P), undergoing dental implant treatment either with additional HBO therapy (I) or without HBO therapy (C), using following databases: PubMed, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register. The search strategy used a combination of controlled vocabulary and free text terms.

Following keywords were used in the search box of all three databases either alone or in combination with two or more keywords (i.e., #1, #2, #3, or #1, #2, #3, #5) in an attempt not to miss any related trial, eligible to get included in the study.

Dental implants or oral implants or endosseous implants or osseointegrated implantsRadiation therapy or radiotherapy or irradiation or irradiated tissuesHyperbaric oxygen or hyperbaric oxygen therapy or HBO therapy or hyperbaric oxygenationDental implant failures and/or randomized controlled trialsHBO therapy and experimental trialsIrradiation, dental implants, HBO therapy, randomized controlled trials, experimental trials (Word variations had been used, i.e., radiotherapy for irradiation).

A manual search of dental implant-related journals, reference list of the identified studies, and relevant reviews on the subject was also scanned for possible additional studies. Moreover, online databases providing information about clinical trials in progress were also checked (clinicaltrials.gov; www.centerwatch.com/clinicaltrials; www.clinicalconnection.com; www.cochranelibrary.com).

Data collection and analysis

Selection of studies

The review process consisted of two phases. In the first phase, titles and abstracts of the search were initially screened by two authors for relevance and the full text of relevant abstract was obtained and accessed. Any disagreement was solved by discussion and with the third author's suggestion. The hand search of selected journals as well as search of reference of the selected studies was also done. The articles were obtained after first step of the review process using the following inclusion and exclusion criteria and were screened in the second phase, and relevant and suitable articles were isolated for further processing and data extraction. Duplicates and articles with insufficient necessary data were excluded.

Inclusion criteria's

Clinical human studies, on irradiated maxillofacial dental implant patients, including:

RCTsProspective studyRetrospective studyPreliminary reports.

Exclusion criteria's

Case reportsTechnical reportsAnimal studiesIn vitro studiesReview articles<5 patients treated.

In general, RCTs constitute the highest level of evidence. Although developing recommendations based on the highest level of evidence is desirable, adequate number of RCTs is not always available. Hence, we included some prospective and retrospective clinical studies with a preliminary report (Ali et al., 1997). The purpose of the report was to provide some preliminary data collected from a long-term, prospective investigation on the effects of HBO therapy on implant integration in the irradiated jaw. Data on the effects of various doses of irradiation to the perioral region were collected by regular clinical, radiologic, and histologic examinations.

Data extraction and management

Three review authors independently extracted data from the studies using standardized selection criteria, developed for this review. We tried to contact the authors of primary studies to request further information when data were missing or incomplete. Review authors resolved all differences by discussion. Data were excluded until further clarification became available if agreement could not be reached.

For each trial, the following data were recorded.

Year of publication and country of originDetails of the participants including demographic characteristics and criteria for inclusionDetails of the type of interventionDetails of the outcomes reported including method of assessment and time intervals.

Assessment of “risk of bias” in the included study

The assessment of the risk bias was conducted using the recommended approach by Cochrane reviews [Table 1] and [Graph 1 [SUPPORTING:1] ] and was completed independently and in duplicate by two review authors as a part of the data extraction process.{Table 1}

Results of the search for data collection

The database search yielded 62 titles, out of which 22 titles were discarded by title evaluation. Abstracts evaluation was done for the remaining 40 articles, and 6 articles were discarded on the basis of inclusion and exclusion criteria. Full-text data were obtained for the remaining 34 articles, among which 8 articles were discarded due to insufficient data and 12 articles did not match the criteria of the study. Hence, finally, 14 articles were selected for the study [Flowchart 1 [SUPPORTING:3] ].

Description of the included studies

The data obtained after the search strategy were tabulated and statistically analyzed. The results were as follows:

[Table 2] shows the required details, regarding the 14 selected studies, included in this systematic review[Table 3] shows the evidence level of the selected articles according to the study design[Table 4] shows the characteristics of the each included study.{Table 2}{Table 3}{Table 4}

Description of the excluded studies (with the reason for being excluded)

[Table 5] shows the characteristics of the excluded studies.{Table 5}

Risk of bias assessment

[Table 1] shows the assessment of the risk of bias of the included studies.

[Graph 1] shows the assessment of the risk of bias of the included studies.

Effects of intervention and statistical analysis

Effect of intervention was studied for all 14 selected studies, and the implant survival rate for each group was statistically calculated [Table 2] and [Table 4].

Results of the study

Experimental studies

[Table 6] shows estimated values for implant failures in HBO(+) group for an experimental study when the P value is set at P < 0.05, with the confidence interval (CI) of 95%.{Table 6}

[Table 7] shows estimated values for implant failures in non-HBO(+) group for an experimental study when the P value is set at P < 0.05, with the CI of 95%.{Table 7}

[Forest Plot 1 [SUPPORTING:4] ] shows implant failures in HBO and non-HBO group for experimental studies.

Prospective studies

[Table 8] shows estimated values for implant failures in HBO(−) group for three prospective studies when the same P value is set at P < 0.05, with the same CI of 95%.{Table 8}

[Table 9] shows estimated values for implant failures in non-HBO(−) group for 3 prospective studies when the P value is set at P < 0.05, with the same CI of 95%.{Table 9}

[Forest Plot 2 [SUPPORTING:5] ] shows implant failures in HBO and non-HBO group for prospective studies.

Retrospective studies

[Table 10] shows estimated values for implant failures in HBO(−) group for four retrospective studies when the same P value is set at P < 0.05, with the same CI of 95%.{Table 10}

[Table 11] shows estimated values for implant failures in non-HBO(−) group for seven retrospective studies when the same P value is set at P < 0.05, with the same CI of 95%.{Table 11}

[Forest Plot 3 [SUPPORTING:6] ] shows implant failures in HBO and non-HBO group for retrospective studies.

[Table 12] represents “Pearson's Chi-square test” which shows the total number of implants placed, failed, and survived in both the groups, with P < 0.001, which shows that significant difference exists between both the group regarding the number of implants failed and survived.{Table 12}

[Graph 2 [SUPPORTING:2] ] shows the significant difference regarding the implant failure rate in both the groups:

Implant failure rate (%) in HBO(+) group: 9.21%Implant failure rate (%) in non-HBO(−) group: 22.44%

 Summary



The present systematic review was undertaken to compare the implant failure rates for patients being irradiated in the head and neck region and receiving HBO therapy versus non-HBO therapy. There are many scientific papers [27] written about this subject including a number of review articles, but only one RCT (Schoen et al. 2007) including a limited number of participants was found for this review.

 Conclusion



According to above statistical analysis, results show that preventive HBO therapy can reduce the risk of implant failures in irradiated patients, may be due to improved vascularity which leads to reduced risk of radiation-induced damages to tissue, and thus, HBO can be the effective treatment protocol, while planning for the implant treatment in irradiated maxillofacial patients. Still, some important factors, other than irradiation, that affect the implant survival rate in irradiated bone were type of implant, surgical procedures used, time interval between radiotherapy and implant placement, and radiation dose, which were not included in the meta-analysis, due to insufficient data.

Hence, further research work has to be done to specify above-mentioned various reasons of failures and various factors affecting the success and failure rates of dental implants in irradiated maxillofacial patients.

There is a definite need for more RCTs to ascertain the effectiveness of HBO in irradiated maxillofacial dental implant patients. These trials ought to be of a high quality and reported as recommended by the consort statement (www.consort-statement.org/). Each clinical center may have limited numbers of patients and it is likely that multicentered trials will be needed. Only with that clinicians will receive the evidence they need for their study and make the best treatment decisions possible.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

References

1Urken ML, Weinberg H, Buchbinder D, Moscoso JF, Lawson W, Catalano PJ, et al. Microvascular free flaps in head and neck reconstruction. Report of 200 cases and review of complications. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1994;120:633-40.
2Boyd JB, Rosen I, Rotstein L, Freeman J, Gullane P, Manktelow R, et al. The iliac crest and the radial forearm flap in vascularized oromandibular reconstruction. Am J Surg 1990;159:301-8.
3Chrcanovic BR, Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A. Dental implants in irradiated versus non-irradiated patients: A meta-analysis. Head Neck 2016;38:448-81.
4Brånemark PI. Osseointegration and its experimental background. J Prosthet Dent 1983;50:399-410.
5Granström G. Osseointegration in irradiated cancer patients: An analysis with respect to implant failures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2005;63:579-85.
6Nooh N. Dental implant survival in irradiated oral cancer patients: A systematic review of the literature. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2013;28:1233-42.
7Johnson RP, Marx RE, Buckley SB. Hyperbaric oxygen in oral and maxillofacial surgery. In: Worthington P, Evans JR, editors. Controversies in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. London: WB Saunders Co., Harcourt Brace and Co.; 1994. p. 107-26.
8Marx RE, Johnson RP, Kline SN. Prevention of osteoradionecrosis: A randomized prospective clinical trial of hyperbaric oxygen versus penicillin. J Am Dent Assoc 1985;111:49-54.
9Granström G, Jacobsson M, Tjellström A. Titanium implants in irradiated tissue: Benefits from hyperbaric oxygen. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1992;7:15-25.
10Sahni T, Hukku S, Jain M, Prasad A, Prasad R, Singh K. Recent advances in hyperbaric oxygen therapy. Med Update 2004;14:632-9.
11Marx RE, Ames JR. The use of hyperbaric oxygen therapy in bony reconstruction of the irradiated and tissue-deficient patient. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1982;40:412-20.
12Johnsson ÅA. On implant integration in irradiated bone. An experimental study of the effects of hyperbaric oxygenation and delayed implant placement. Thesis, University of Gothenburg, Sweden; 1999.
13Franzén L, Rosenquist JB, Rosenquist KI, Gustafsson I. Oral implant rehabilitation of patients with oral malignancies treated with radiotherapy and surgery without adjunctive hyperbaric oxygen. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1995;10:183-7.
14Barber HD, Seckinger RJ, Hayden RE, Weinstein GS. Evaluation of osseointegration of endosseous implants in radiated, vascularized fibula flaps to the mandible: A pilot study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1995;53:640-4.
15Esser E, Wagner W. Dental implants following radical oral cancer surgery and adjuvant radiotherapy. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1997;12:552-7.
16Ali A, Patton DW, el-Sharkawi AM, Davies J. Implant rehabilitation of irradiated jaws: A preliminary report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1997;12:523-6.
17Niimi A, Fujimoto T, Nosaka Y, Ueda M. A Japanese multicenter study of osseointegrated implants placed in irradiated tissues: A preliminary report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1997;12:259-64.
18Jisander S, Grenthe B, Alberius P. Dental implant survival in the irradiated jaw: A preliminary report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1997;12:643-8.
19Niimi A, Ueda M, Keller EE, Worthington P. Experience with osseointegrated implants placed in irradiated tissues in Japan and the United States. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1998;13:407-11.
20Andersson G, Andreasson L, Bjelkengren G. Oral implant rehabilitation in irradiated patients without adjunctive hyperbaric oxygen. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1998;13:647-54.
21Granström G, Tjellström A, Brånemark PI. Osseointegrated implants in irradiated bone: A case-controlled study using adjunctive hyperbaric oxygen therapy. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1999;57:493-9.
22Granström G. Radiotherapy, osseointegration and hyperbaric oxygen therapy. Periodontol 2000 2003;33:145-62.
23Shaw RJ, Sutton AF, Cawood JI, Howell RA, Lowe D, Brown JS, et al. Oral rehabilitation after treatment for head and neck malignancy. Head Neck 2005;27:459-70.
24Granström G. Placement of dental implants in irradiated bone: The case for using hyperbaric oxygen. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2006;64:812-8.
25Schoen PJ, Raghoebar GM, Bouma J, Reintsema H, Vissink A, Sterk W, et al. Rehabilitation of oral function in head and neck cancer patients after radiotherapy with implant-retained dentures: Effects of hyperbaric oxygen therapy. Oral Oncol 2007;43:379-88.
26Barrowman RA, Wilson PR, Wiesenfeld D. Oral rehabilitation with dental implants after cancer treatment. Aust Dent J 2011;56:160-5.
27Coulthard P, Esposito M, Worthington HV, Jokstad A. Therapeutic use of hyperbaric oxygen for irradiated dental implant patients: A systematic review. J Dent Educ 2003;67:64-8.