ArticleHeliyon2024
A new classification of mandible defects and condyle changed after mandible reconstruction with FFF.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Automated Global Positioning Layout (GPL) for accuracy assessment in CAD-CAM mandibular reconstruction - method introduction.Scientific reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To explore a new classification of mandibular defects and changes in the preserved condyle after mandibular reconstruction with free fibular flap(FFF). Study design: We reviewed patients who underwent mandibular reconstruction with FFF from 2015 to 2021 and classified the mandibular defects into five categories: classⅠ(unilateral-mandibular excluding condyle), classⅡ(unilateral-mandibular including condyle), classⅢ(bilateral-mandibular excluding condyle), classⅣ(bilateral-mandibular including one condyle), and classⅤ(bilateral-mandibular including both condyles). Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) data were collected preoperatively(T0), at 7-10 postoperative days(T1), 6 postoperative months(T2), and 1 postoperative year(T3). We calculated the condylar surface area, volume, and displacement. Results: 62 cases were collected. The condylar surface areas and volumes in T2 and T3 values were lower than those of T0 and T1(P < 0.01) The condylar displacement was the lowest in ClassI and the largest in ClassⅣ(P < 0.01), while no significant differences in classesⅠ-Ⅲ(P < 0.05). Displacement during T1-T0 was greater than that during T2-T0 and T3-T0(P < 0.05). Conclusion: Mandibular reconstruction with FFF results in displacement and alteration of the condyle within a time interval, and this alteration stabilizes after 6 months. Mandibular defects that do not reach the midline, surgical alteration to preserve the condyle are not required. However, when the defects cross the midline, the condyle should be preserved as much as possible.
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.