ReviewJPRAS open2025
Surgical Management of Microstomia: A Comprehensive Review of Treatment Options.
Review in JPRAS open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Whale-tail-shaped mucocutaneous flap for the reconstruction of electrical burn at the labial commissure: a case report.International journal of surgery case reports · 2026Article
- Microstomia Correction in an 11-Year-Old Girl With Freeman-Burian Syndrome.Case reports in dentistry · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Microstomia is characterized by a reduced oral aperture, leading to impairments in speech, feeding, dental hygiene, and facial expressions. Nonsurgical treatments offer limited benefits for mild cases although surgical interventions have been shown to yield better outcomes. However, the unique anatomical challenges and limited availability of adjacent tissue present obstacles in surgical management of this condition. This review aims to provide a comprehensive summary of the reported surgical techniques for microstomia management and discuss their specific indications, advantages, and potential limitations. Methods: A comprehensive review was conducted in June 2024 to identify studies that have reported on the surgical techniques for microstomia management. A database search was performed on Medline, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science. The study findings have been reported as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. Quality assessment was conducted using the Case Report (CARE) guidelines and Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies (MINORS) assessment. Results: The search yielded a total of 1315 studies; of these, 28 met the inclusion criteria following a full-text screening. Ten surgical techniques for microstomia management were identified and categorized into the following three reconstructive modalities: grafts, local tissue transfer, and autologous free tissue transfer. The average scores of the CARE and MINORS assessments were 27.20/30 and 11.33/14 respectively. Conclusion: Selection of the appropriate surgical technique is critical for achieving successful results in microstomia reconstruction. The primary objective is to enlarge the oral opening while preserving oral function and achieving satisfactory cosmetic outcomes. The key considerations for choosing a surgical technique include contracture severity, perioral tissue availability, and the surgeon's familiarity with different surgical options.
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.