Head and neck cancer treatment can severely alter oral function and aesthetics, and reduce quality of life. The role of maxillofacial prosthodontists in multidisciplinary treatment of head and neck cancer patients is essential when it comes to oral rehabilitation and its planning. This role should preferably start on the day of first intake. Maxillofacial prosthodontists should be involved in the care pathway to shape and outline the prosthetic and dental rehabilitation in line with the reconstructive surgical options. With the progress of three‐dimensional technology, the pretreatment insight in overall prognosis and possibilities of surgical and/or prosthetic rehabilitation has tremendously increased. This increased insight has helped to improve quality of cancer care. This expert review addresses the involvement of maxillofacial prosthodontists in treatment planning, highlighting prosthodontic rehabilitation of head and neck cancer patients from start to finish.

Background Oral cancer patients can benefit from dental implant placement. Traditionally implants are placed after completing oncologic treatment (secondary implant placement). Implant placement during ablative surgery (primary placement) in oral cancer patients seems beneficial in terms of early start of oral rehabilitation and limiting additional surgical interventions. Guidelines on the ideal timing of implant placement in oral cancer patients are missing. Objective To perform a scoping literature review on studies examining the timing of dental implant placement in oral cancer patients and propose a clinical practice recommendations guideline. Methods A literature search for studies dealing with primary and/or secondary implant placement in Medline was conducted (last search December 27^th, 2019). The primary outcome was 5‐year implant survival. Results 16 out of 808 studies were considered eligible. Both primary and secondary implant placement showed acceptable overall implant survival ratios with a higher pooled 5‐year implant survival rate for primary implant placement 92.8% (95% CI: 87.1%‐98.5%) than secondary placed implants (86.4%, 95% CI: 77.0%‐95.8%). Primary implant placement is accompanied by earlier prosthetic rehabilitation after tumor surgery. Conclusion Patients with oral cancer greatly benefit from, preferably primary placed, dental implants in their prosthetic rehabilitation. The combination of tumor surgery with implant placement in native mandibular bone should be provided as standard care.

Zygomatic implants are used in patients with maxillary defects to improve the retention and stability of obturator prostheses, thereby securing good oral function. Prosthetic-driven placement of zygomatic implants is even difficult for experienced surgeons, and with a free-hand approach, deviation from the preplanned implant positions is inevitable, thereby impeding immediate implant-retained obturation. A novel, digitalized workflow of surgical planning was used in 10 patients. Maxillectomy was performed with 3D-printed cutting, and drill guides were used for subsequent placement of zygomatic implants with immediate placement of implant-retained obturator prosthesis. The outcome parameters were the accuracy of implant positioning and the prosthetic fit of the obturator prosthesis in this one-stage procedure. Zygomatic implants (n = 28) were placed with good accuracy (mean deviation 1.73 ± 0.57 mm and 2.97 ± 1.38° 3D angle deviation), and in all cases, the obturator prosthesis fitted as pre-operatively planned. The 3D accuracy of the abutment positions was 1.58 ± 1.66 mm. The accuracy of the abutment position in the occlusal plane was 2.21 ± 1.33 mm, with a height accuracy of 1.32 ± 1.57 mm. This feasibility study shows that the application of these novel designed 3D-printed surgical guides results in predictable zygomatic implant placement and provides the possibility of immediate prosthetic rehabilitation in head and neck oncology patients after maxillectomy.

Background: The aim of this study was to introduce a complete 3D workflow for immediate implant retained prosthetic rehabilitation following maxillectomy in cancer surgery. The workflow consists of a 3D virtual surgical planning for tumor resection, zygomatic implant placement, and for an implant-retained prosthetic-obturator to fit the planned outcome situation for immediate loading. Materials and methods: In this study, 3D virtual surgical planning and resection of the maxilla, followed by guided placement of 10 zygomatic implants, using custom cutting and drill/placement-guides, was performed on 5 fresh frozen human cadavers. A preoperatively digitally designed and printed obturator prosthesis was placed and connected to the zygomatic implants. The accuracy of the implant positioning was obtained using 3D deviation analysis by merging the pre- and post-operative CT scan datasets. Results: The preoperatively designed and manufactured obturator prostheses matched accurately the per-operative implant positions. All five obturators could be placed and fixated for immediate loading. The mean prosthetic point deviation on the cadavers was 1.03 ± 0.85 mm; the mean entry point deviation was 1.20 ± 0.62 mm; and the 3D angle deviation was 2.97 ± 1.44°. Conclusions: It is possible to 3D plan and accurately execute the ablative surgery, placement of zygomatic implants, and immediate placement of an implant-retained obturator prosthesis with 3D virtual surgical planning.The next step is to apply the workflow in the operating room in patients planned for maxillectomy.

Zygomatic implants (ZI) are a valuable option for supporting an obturator prosthesis after maxillary resection. This study was performed to assess the clinical outcomes of a digitally validated guided technique for ZI placement, followed by immediate prosthetic obturation. The primary objective was to evaluate implant survival, while the secondary objective was to assess patient-reported quality of life post-rehabilitation. Twelve patients treated for head and neck cancer received a total of 36 ZI after ablative surgery. The mean duration of ZI follow-up was 30.1 months. The survival rate of ZI placed in non-irradiated patients was 100%, while it was 85% in irradiated patients. Patient-reported outcomes were evaluated using the Liverpool Oral Rehabilitation Questionnaire (LORQv3) and the University of Washington Quality of Life Questionnaire (UW-QOL v4). Most patients reported satisfactory outcomes in the oral function domain of the LORQv3 (mean score 17.7 ± 4.5; possible range 12-48, with lower scores indicating better outcomes). Regarding the UW-QOL v4, the swallowing and chewing domains had the highest scores (mean 97.5 ± 8.7 and 95.8 ± 14.4, respectively; maximum possible score of 100). In conclusion, this treatment approach improves function and quality of life after maxillary ablative surgery. However, irradiated patients showed a noticeable trend of higher implant failure, and this was influenced by tumour position and size impacting the radiation dose to the zygomatic bone.