ArticleClinical oral investigations2025
Comparison of CAD/CAM and conventional microvascular free bone flaps in reconstructive head and neck surgery: a retrospective analysis of over 110 cases.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Accuracy and Outcomes of Computer-Aided Surgical Planning in Deep Circumflex Iliac Artery (DCIA) Free Flap Reconstruction of Maxillofacial Defects: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Hybrid Reconstruction in Head and Neck Surgery: Integration of Virtual Planning, Navigation, and Robotic Microsurgery.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Accuracy of CAD/CAM planned mandibular reconstruction with scapula free flaps in reconstructive head and neck surgery - A single center study.Oral and maxillofacial surgery · 2026Article
- Pretreatment body mass index as a prognostic factor for clinical course and survival in primary surgically treated oral squamous cell carcinoma - a retrospective study.Frontiers in oncology · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesComputer-Aided Design and Computer-Aided Manufacturing (CAD/CAM) - techniques are increasingly considered the gold standard for orofacial osseous reconstruction. By facilitating the harvesting and transfer of microvascular bone flaps, CAD/CAM offers potential advantages over conventional methods. Therefore, this study aimed to compare both methods in a large cohort. MATERIALS AND
methodsPatients who underwent conventional or CAD/CAM-planned osseous reconstruction with microvascular free flaps between 2000 and 2019 were included. Primary outcomes included osseous union, plate fracture, duration of intensive care (ICU) treatment, ischemic time, surgical time, oncological clearance and red blood cell transfusion requirements (RBT). Confounding factors influencing primary results were also analyzed. Statistical analyses were performed with a multivariate regression model; the level of significance was set to p = 0.050.
resultsA total of 112 patients were included, with 56 cases undergoing conventional reconstruction and 56 receiving CAD/CAM-assisted surgery. Patients in the CAD/CAM-group had significantly shorter ischemic times (p = 0.007), with no disadvantages regarding resection margins (p = 0.509). Nevertheless, reconstruction with scapula osteocutaneous free flaps (SOFF) and reconstruction with deep circumflex iliac artery grafts (DCIA) flaps showed a significant association (p = 0.015 and p = 0.036 respectively) for red blood cell transfusion requirements when performed with CAD/CAM.
conclusionsCAD/CAM-techniques reduce ischemic time in osseous reconstruction and show no disadvantages regarding clear margin resection. When performing complex reconstructions with chimeric SOFF using CAD/CAM-technique, longer ICU stay and prolonged surgical time was noticed. Furthermore, CAD/CAM-technique is associated with higher requirements for RBT when performing reconstructions with SOFF and DCIA flaps. Nevertheless, these results must be interpreted with caution, as the conventional group included younger patients (mean: 58.66 ± 9.15 years) than the CAD/CAM group (mean: 64.98 ± 10.41 years). CLINICAL RELEVANCE: CAD/CAM-techniques reveal advantages, such as reduced ischemic time when compared to the conventional technique and enables extensive reconstructive surgery even for older patients. Nevertheless, due to the retrospective character with heterogeneous study groups, further research is highly recommended to evaluate long-term outcomes and further define the role of CAD/CAM in oncologic head and neck reconstruction.
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.