Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37228490›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2023

Mandibular reconstructions with free fibula flap using standardized partially adjustable cutting guides or CAD/CAM technique: a three- and two-dimensional comparison.

Jochen Weitz, Alex Grabenhorst, Hannes Singer, Minli Niu, Florian D Grill, Daniel Kamreh, Carolina A S Claßen, Klaus-Dietrich Wolff, Lucas M Ritschl

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Clinical Comparison of CAD/CAM vs. KLS L1Journal of clinical medicine · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jochen WeitzDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Josefinum, Augsburg and Private Practice Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery im Pferseepark, Augsburg, Germany.
Alex GrabenhorstDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Hannes SingerDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Minli NiuDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Florian D GrillDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Daniel KamrehDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Carolina A S ClaßenDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Klaus-Dietrich WolffDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Lucas M RitschlDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Technical University of Munich · DESaarland University · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Mandibular reconstruction with the fibula free flap (FFF) is performed freehand, CAD/CAM-assisted, or by using partially adjustable resection/reconstruction aids. The two latter options represent the contemporary reconstructive solutions of the recent decade. The purpose of this study was to compare both auxiliary techniques with regard to feasibility, accuracy, and operative parameters. Methods and materials: The first twenty consecutively operated patients requiring a mandibular reconstruction (within angle-to-angle) with the FFF using the partially adjustable resection aids between January 2017 and December 2019 at our department were included. Additionally, matching CAD/CAM FFF cases were used as control group in this cross-sectional study. Medical records and general information (sex, age, indication for surgery, extent of resection, number of segments, duration of surgery, and ischemia time) were analyzed. In addition, the pre- and postoperative Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine data of the mandibles were converted to standard tessellation language (.stl) files. Conventional measurements - six horizontal distances (A-F) and temporo-mandibular joint (TMJ) spaces - and the root mean square error (RMSE) for three-dimensional analysis were measured and calculated. Results: In total, 40 patients were enrolled (20:20). Overall operation time, ischemia time, and the interval between ischemia time start until end of operation showed no significant differences. No significant difference between the two groups were revealed in conventional measurements of distances (A-D) and TMJ spaces. The Δ differences for the distance F (between the mandibular foramina) and the right medial joint space were significantly lower in the ReconGuide group. The RMSE analysis of the two groups showed no significant difference ( Conclusions: The reconstructive surgeon can achieve comparable postoperative results regardless of technique, which may favor the ReconGuide use in mandibular angle-to-angle reconstruction over the CAD/CAM technique because of less preoperative planning time and lower costs per case.

Indexed as

CAD/CAM planningfree fibula flapmandibular reconstructionstandardized partially adjustable cutting guidesthree dimensional comparison

Identifiers

PMID37228490
PMCPMC10203950
OpenAlexW4378348430

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.