ArticleHead & neck oncology2012
Analysis of the compatibility of dental implant systems in fibula free flap reconstruction.
Article in Head & neck oncology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It carries an expression of concern. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Combination of radiotherapy and flap reconstruction for cancer treatments (Review).Molecular and clinical oncology · 2024Review
- Dental implant restoration for dentition defects improves clinical efficacy, masticatory function and patient comfort.American journal of translational research · 2022Article
- Jaw in a day: Osseointegration of the implants in the patient's leg before reconstructive surgery of a maxilla with ameloblastoma. A 4-year follow-up case report.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2021Article
- The application of fibular free flap with flexor hallucis longus in maxilla or mandible extensive defect: a comparison study with conventional flap.World journal of surgical oncology · 2018Article
- Analysis of Fibular Single Graft and Fibular Double-barrel Graft for Mandibular Reconstruction.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
- Expression of concern
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As a result of major ablative surgery, head and neck oncology patients can be left with significant defects in the orofacial region. The resultant defect raises the need for advanced reconstruction techniques. The reconstruction in this region is aimed at restoring function and facial contour. The use of vascularised free flaps has revolutionised the reconstruction in the head and neck. Advances in reconstruction techniques have resulted in continuous improvement of oral rehabilitation. For example, endosteal implants are being used to restore the masticatory function by the way of prosthetic replacement of the dentition. Implant rehabilitation usually leads to improved facial appearance, function, restoration of speech and mastication. Suitable dental implant placement's site requires satisfactory width, height and quality of bone. Reconstruction of hard tissue defects therefore will need to be tailored to meet the needs for implant placement.The aim of this feasibility study was to assess the compatibility of five standard commercially available dental implant systems (Biomet 3i, Nobel Biocare, Astra tech, Straumann and Ankylos) for placement into vascularised fibula graft during the reconstruction of oromandibular region.Radiographs (2D) of the lower extremities from 142 patients in the archives of the Department of Radiology in University College London Hospitals (UCLH) were analysed in this study. These radiographs were from 61 females and 81 males. Additionally, 60 unsexed dry fibular bones, 30 right sided, acquired from the collection of the Department of Anatomy, University College London (UCL) were also measured to account for the 3D factor.In the right fibula (dry bone), 90% of the samples measured had a width of 13.1 mm. While in the left fibula (dry bone), 90% of the samples measured had a width of 13.3 mm. Fibulas measured on radiographs had a width of 14.3 mm in 90% of the samples. The length ranges of the dental implants used in this study were: 7-13 mm (Biomet 3i), 10-13 mm (Nobel biocare), 8-13 mm (Astra Tech), 8-12 mm (Straumann ) and 8-11 mm (Ankylos).This study reached a conclusion that the width of fibula is sufficient for placement of most frequently used dental implants for oral rehabilitation after mandibular reconstructive procedures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.