Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2025 Sep;36(9):1035-1052.
doi: 10.1111/clr.14450. Epub 2025 Jun 18.

Comprehensive Update on Implants in Patients With Head and Neck Cancer (2021-2024): Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Impact of Radiotherapy and Chemotherapy on Implant Survival

Shengchi Fan  1   2 , Leonardo Diaz  3 , Gustavo Sáenz-Ravello  4 , Eduard Valmaseda-Castellon  2 , Bilal Al-Nawas  1 , Eik Schiegnitz  1
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Comprehensive Update on Implants in Patients With Head and Neck Cancer (2021-2024): Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Impact of Radiotherapy and Chemotherapy on Implant Survival

Shengchi Fan et al. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2025 Sep.

Abstract

Objectives: This study aimed to investigate implant outcomes in patients with head and neck cancer undergoing radiotherapy or chemotherapy by incorporating the latest research findings.

Methods: The present review was conducted to update the focused question: What is the survival rate of implants placed in patients with head and neck cancer receiving radiotherapy or chemotherapy compared to non-irradiated patients? It built upon two previous systematic reviews (2014 and 2022) and provided an updated synthesis of the literature, focusing on clinical studies published between 2021 and 2024. The earlier reviews were included in the quantitative synthesis only to offer a broader longitudinal perspective.

Results: Nine studies were identified, with seven included in the quantitative synthesis and meta-analysis. The implant survival rate was significantly lower in irradiated patients (85.6%) compared to non-irradiated patients (90.0%) (RR = 1.62, 95% CI: 1.33-1.98, p < 0.0001, I2 = 0.2%). Additionally, implant failure risk was higher in grafted bone (RR = 2.03, 95% CI: 1.39-2.96, p = 0.0018, I2 = 21.9%) than in native bone. Among irradiated patients, those receiving radiochemotherapy exhibited an even greater risk of implant failure (RR = 1.97, 95% CI: 1.09-3.56, p = 0.0331, I2 = 0%) compared to non-irradiated patients.

Conclusions: Current evidence indicates that radiotherapy/chemotherapy significantly increases the risk of implant loss in patients with head and neck cancer, with higher radiation doses possibly being associated with increased peri-implant bone loss, while implants placed in native bone exhibit a lower risk of failure compared to those placed in grafted bone.

Keywords: chemotherapy; dental implants; head and neck cancer; radiation therapy; survival rate.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
PRISMA flow chart.
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
Forest plot of the prevalence of implant failure on irradiated bone from single‐arm trials.
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 3
Forest plot of the risk of implant failure in irradiated patients compared to non‐irradiated patients.
FIGURE 4
FIGURE 4
Funnel plot of the meta‐analysis of the risk of implant failure in irradiated compared to non‐irradiated patients. (A) Baseline meta‐analysis; (B) trim‐and‐fill method.
FIGURE 5
FIGURE 5
Forest plot of the risk of failure in irradiated patients comparing grafted bone to native bone.
FIGURE 6
FIGURE 6
Funnel plot of the risk of failure in irradiated patients comparing grafted bone to native bone. (A) Baseline meta‐analysis; (B) trim‐and‐fill method.
FIGURE 7
FIGURE 7
Forest plot of the risk of implant failure in patients treated with radiochemotherapy compared to non‐irradiated patients.
FIGURE 8
FIGURE 8
Funnel plot of the risk of failure in patients treated with radiochemotherapy. (A) Baseline meta‐analysis; (B) trim‐and‐fill method.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Alberga, J. M. , Vissink A., Korfage A., et al. 2023. “Site‐Specific Radiation Dosage and Implant Survival in Oral Cancer Patients: A Cohort Study.” Oral Diseases 30: 3866–3872. 10.1111/odi.14813. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Albrektsson, T. , Zarb G., Worthington P., and Eriksson A. R.. 1986. “The Long‐Term Efficacy of Currently Used Dental Implants: A Review and Proposed Criteria of Success.” International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants 1, no. 1: 11–25. - PubMed
    1. Alimohamadi, Y. , and Sepandi M.. 2019. “Considering the Design Effect in Cluster Sampling.” Journal of Cardiovascular and Thoracic Research 11, no. 1: 78. 10.15171/jcvtr.2019.14. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Anderson, G. , Ebadi M., Vo K., Novak J., Govindarajan A., and Amini A.. 2021. “An Updated Review on Head and Neck Cancer Treatment With Radiation Therapy.” Cancers 13, no. 19: 4912. 10.3390/cancers13194912. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Chappuis, V. , Avila‐Ortiz G., Araújo M. G., and Monje A.. 2018. “Medication‐Related Dental Implant Failure: Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis.” Clinical Oral Implants Research 29, no. S16: 55–68. 10.1111/clr.13137. - DOI - PubMed

MeSH terms