Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34631563›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2021

In-House, Open-Source 3D-Software-Based, CAD/CAM-Planned Mandibular Reconstructions in 20 Consecutive Free Fibula Flap Cases: An Explorative Cross-Sectional Study With Three-Dimensional Performance Analysis.

Lucas M Ritschl, Paul Kilbertus, Florian D Grill, Matthias Schwarz, Jochen Weitz, Markus Nieberler, Klaus-Dietrich Wolff, Andreas M Fichter

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Interactive pipeline for mandible reconstruction surgery planning using fibula free flap.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Lucas M RitschlDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Munich, Germany.
Paul KilbertusDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Munich, Germany.
Florian D GrillDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Munich, Germany.
Matthias SchwarzDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Munich, Germany.
Jochen WeitzDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Munich, Germany.
Markus NieberlerDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Munich, Germany.
Klaus-Dietrich WolffDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Munich, Germany.
Andreas M FichterDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Munich, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMandibular reconstruction is conventionally performed freehand, CAD/CAM-assisted, or by using partially adjustable resection aids. CAD/CAM-assisted reconstructions are usually done in cooperation with osteosynthesis manufacturers, which entails additional costs and longer lead time. The purpose of this study is to analyze an in-house, open-source software-based solution for virtual planning. METHODS AND MATERIALS: All consecutive cases between January 2019 and April 2021 that underwent in-house, software-based (Blender) mandibular reconstruction with a free fibula flap (FFF) were included in this cross-sectional study. The pre- and postoperative Digital Imaging and Com munications in Medicine (DICOM) data were converted to standard tessellation language (STL) files. In addition to documenting general information (sex, age, indication for surgery, extent of resection, number of segments, duration of surgery, and ischemia time), conventional measurements and three-dimensional analysis methods (root mean square error [RMSE], mean surface distance [MSD], and Hausdorff distance [HD]) were used.

resultsTwenty consecutive cases were enrolled. Three-dimensional analysis of preoperative and virtually planned neomandibula models was associated with a median RMSE of 1.4 (0.4-7.2), MSD of 0.3 (-0.1-2.9), and HD of 0.7 (0.1-3.1). Three-dimensional comparison of preoperative and postoperative models showed a median RMSE of 2.2 (1.5-11.1), MSD of 0.5 (-0.6-6.1), and HD of 1.5 (1.1-6.5) and the differences were significantly different for RMSE (

conclusionsOpen-source software-based in-house planning is a feasible, inexpensive, and fast method that enables accurate reconstructions. Additionally, it is excellent for teaching purposes.

Indexed as

3D printingfree fibula flapin-house CAD/CAM planningmandibular reconstructionopen-source software

Identifiers

PMID34631563
PMCPMC8498593

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.