ArticleBMC oral health2026
Fibula flap versus soft tissue flap with reconstruction plate for mandibular stage 3 medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in BMC oral health, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWith the increasing incidence of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ), the choice of reconstruction method for mandibular stage 3 MRONJ remains controversial. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of fibula flap (FF) and soft tissue flap with reconstruction plate (SR) in patients with mandibular stage 3 MRONJ.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study included patients diagnosed with mandibular stage 3 MRONJ who underwent reconstruction between September 2018 and May 2024. Patients were categorized into the FF and SR groups. Demographic and general characteristics, intraoperative and postoperative outcomes, and oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) were compared between the two groups. Microsurgical outcomes of the FF group were also analyzed.
resultsA total of 29 patients (17 FF vs. 12 SR) were analyzed. The operative time was significantly shorter in the SR group (P < 0.001). A lower rate of wound-related complications and a greater improvement in OHRQoL were observed in the FF group compared to the SR group, although the differences were not statistically significant (P > 0.05). The FF group achieved significantly better plate-related complication-free survival (HR = 0.12, 95% CI = 0.02–0.62, P = 0.019), with no significant effect on overall survival (HR = 0.74, 95% CI = 0.13–4.31, P = 0.712). In the FF group, successful bone healing was achieved in 16 patients, primary healing at the donor site was observed in 15 patients, and the mean lower extremity functional scale (LEFS) score was 60.2 ± 7.0.
conclusionFF reconstruction shows better plate-related complication-free survival compared to SR, with satisfactory outcomes in mandibular stage 3 MRONJ.
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.