ArticleClinical oral investigations2026
Osseous free flap vs. Bridging plate mandibular reconstruction: a retrospective cohort study on perioperative complications of 335 patients.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
objectivesThis study compared postoperative complication rates between bridging plate reconstruction with soft tissue free flaps and osseous free flaps for segmental mandibular defects. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective study compared postoperative outcomes between both techniques in 335 reconstructions of segmental mandibular defects operated over 8 years. The N-1 χ2-test, Fisher’s exact test and Mann-Whitney-U test were used to test for statistical significance after mode and mean imputation were performed on independent variables with missing data.
resultsPatients who received bridging plate reconstructions were significantly older (74.4 ± 10.5 vs. 63.4 ± 10.6 years, p < 0.001) and had higher rates of hypertension (67.6% vs. 40.6%, p = 0.002), atherosclerosis (27.0% vs. 12.8%, p = 0.020), and prophylactic anticoagulation (21.6% vs. 8.7%, p = 0.014). Treatment indications differed significantly, with malignant tumors in 59.5% vs. 78.5% and osteonecrosis in 40.5% vs. 21.5% of bridging plate and osseous reconstructions, respectively (p < 0.001). Mortality (24.3% vs. 10.1%, p = 0.011) and pneumonia rates (13.5% vs. 4.7%, p = 0.029) were higher in the bridging plate group. Plate exposure (21.6% vs. 24.8%, p = 0.669), fixation failure (5.4% vs. 6.0%, p = 0.878), and early flap loss (5.4% vs. 4.4%, p = 0.773) showed no significant differences. Bridging plate reconstructions had shorter surgery times (8.4 ± 2.0 vs. 9.6 ± 2.2 h, p = 0.002) and fewer wound infections (13.5% vs. 30.9%, p = 0.028).
conclusionsOur findings emphasize the value of bridging plate reconstruction as a pragmatic and effective option when osseous reconstruction is contraindicated and advocate for personalized treatment strategies. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: These findings validate bridging plate reconstruction as a safe and pragmatic alternative for patients with contraindications to osseous flaps, such as advanced age or significant comorbidities. The comparable complication rates and shorter operative times support its use in personalized treatment planning.
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.