ArticlePloS one2026
Effect of reconstruction plate removal on dental implants in fibula flap mandibles: A biomechanical and clinical study.
Article in PloS one, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Vascularized autologous bone transplantation combined with implant restoration is a preferred method for functional mandibular reconstruction. However, there is currently no consensus on whether internal fixation devices, such as titanium plates and screws, must be removed during the reconstruction process. This study aimed to assess the biomechanical and clinical necessity of removing these fixation devices. Eight patients who underwent mandibular reconstruction with fibula flaps and subsequent dental implantation were included. The study utilized finite element analysis to simulate and compare biomechanical stress distributions in models where fixation devices were either retained or removed. The clinical outcomes including peri-implant health, masticatory efficiency, and oral health-related quality of life were evaluated through follow-up examinations and standardized questionnaires. The biomechanical analysis indicated that the maximum stress on the grafted fibula surrounding the implants was significantly lower in the retention group (42.07 ± 12.06 MPa) compared to the removal group (44.892 ± 14.80 MPa, P = 0.017*). Furthermore, a positive correlation was identified between the simulated stress levels on the implants and the severity of gingival bleeding (coefficient: 0.82, P = 0.013*). Clinically, while there were no significant differences in marginal bone loss between the two approaches, patients who retained the internal fixation devices reported better quality of life scores regarding functional limitations and physical pain. In conclusion, retaining internal fixation devices appears to reduce mechanical stress on the peri-implant fibula graft and is associated with improved patient-reported outcomes. These findings suggest that the routine removal of reconstruction plates may not be necessary and that retention can favour peri-implant health and patient comfort.
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.