Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37041947›Full record

ReviewJournal of maxillofacial and oral surgery2023

Prosthetic Rehabilitation Options in Post-Ablative Maxillomandibular Microvascular Reconstructions.

V Manju, V N Krishnapriya, Anna Serene Babu, Arjun Krishnadas, Pramod Subash, Subramania Iyer

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of maxillofacial and oral surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Oral rehabilitation of patients with cancer: challenges following surgical resection.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. 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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

V ManjuDepartment of Prosthodontics and Implantology, Amrita School of Dentistry, Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Kochi, Kerala India.
V N KrishnapriyaDepartment of Prosthodontics and Implantology, Amrita School of Dentistry, Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Kochi, Kerala India.
Anna Serene BabuDepartment of Prosthodontics and Implantology, Amrita School of Dentistry, Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Kochi, Kerala India.
Arjun KrishnadasDepartment of Craniomaxillofacial Surgery, Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Kochi, Kerala India.
Pramod SubashDepartment of Craniomaxillofacial Surgery, Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Kochi, Kerala India.
Subramania IyerCentre for Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Centre for Head and Neck Surgery and Oncology, Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Kochi, Kerala India.
Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Surgery remains the mainstay for managing most neoplasms arising in the head and neck area. Removable or fixed prostheses are commonly used for prosthetic rehabilitation of head and neck defects following surgical resection. Some major challenges in prosthetic rehabilitation after maxillomandibular microvascular reconstruction include excessive prosthetic space, soft tissue bulk, and occlusal disharmony in the remaining dentition. This review focuses on the challenges we have experienced in the real clinical scenario while rehabilitating reconstructed maxillomandibular defects and the effective prosthetic treatment options that could be considered in each situation. Discussion: Digital revolution has changed all arenas of life, and it has created a significant impact on cancer treatment planning and the delivery of quality treatment to the needy. Creating adequate retention while ensuring stability and support for the prosthesis can be challenging with temporary acrylic and cast partial removable dentures. Endosseous dental implants are considered a stable, reliable, and esthetic option for reconstruction with advantages such as increased chewing efficiency, preservation of the remaining bone height and width, and improved quality of life. The FP3 to RP5 (Misch's classification) are some commonly followed prosthetic rehabilitation options after microvascular reconstruction. The prosthetic design should permit the usage of interdental aids that ensure the longevity of prostheses. Conclusion: Occlusion-driven/prosthetic-driven implant-assisted prostheses are considered a reliable option that ensures stable and functional oral rehabilitation among patients with free fibula flap reconstruction. Multidisciplinary teamwork is mandatory for an optimal outcome that improves patients' quality of life.

Indexed as

Fixed prosthesisImplant-assisted denturesMicrovascular reconstructionProsthetic rehabilitationRemovable prosthesis

Identifiers

PMID37041947
PMCPMC10082883
OpenAlexW4360980356

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.