ArticleJournal of maxillofacial and oral surgery2023
Dermal Regeneration Template: Reconstruction in Oral Cancer Defects.
Article 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Reconstruction of Surgical Defects of the Oral Cavity with Bilayer Dermal Matrix: Our Experience.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Advanced Secondary Intention Healing for Complex Soft-Tissue Defects Using Reprocessed Micronized Acellular Dermal Matrix.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Post ablative oral mucosal defect resulting from the removal of tumors can be treated with various techniques. Purpose: In this paper, we are showing what, in our experience, are the advantages and disadvantages given using biosynthetic skin substitutes when dealing with this kind of lesions. Materials and methods: Patients included in the sample came to our attention with both neoplastic lesions (11 subjects) and important scar retraction after previous oncologic surgery (1 subject). All patients underwent trans-oral resection surgery following the same surgical protocol and post ablative oral mucosal defect were treated using the dermal regeneration template. The surgical defect location, size, and time of removal of the silicone layer varied from one subject to the other. Results: Most patients showed good healing with reduced scarring and adequate remucosalisation of the defect. The main complications were shown in a palatal lesion treated with concomitant osteal resection, which developed an oroantral fistula at follow up, and tongue lesions which showed some scarring. Conclusions: Given our experience, we would advise using dermal substitutes when reconstructing oral defects only after a cautious evaluation of the area of the lesion, the gap size, the possible adherence of the membrane to the gap, and the presence of tissue supporting the overlying membrane.
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.