ArticleThe Journal of craniofacial surgery2026
Radiographic Evaluation of Peri-Implant Bone Thickness in Fibular Mandible Reconstruction With Preoperative Occlusion-Driven Design.
Article in The Journal of craniofacial surgery, 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionRestoration of dental rehabilitation is the ultimate goal of functional jaw reconstruction, which is called "occlusion-driven jaw reconstruction", whereas fibular mandibular reconstruction (FMR) in the Asian population fails to adequately provide adequate bone volume for subsequent dental implantation. This study proposed a preoperative occlusion-driven design of FMR and compared the peri-implant bone thickness in fibular-reconstructed mandibles with or without preoperative occlusion-driven design.
methodsThe patients underwent FMR and following dental implantation were reviewed, consisting of 10 cases with preoperative occlusion-driven design of free fibular flap (FFF) as the experimental group and the other 12 cases as the control group. A total of 82 endosseous implants were radiographically evaluated and the cross-sectional buccal, lingual, and bottom distances between implant and fibula were calculated.
resultsThe lingual bone thickness at the crown third of the peri-implant in the premolar region and at the middle third of the peri-implant in the molar region was 2.36±0.36 and 4.90±0.43 mm in the experimental group, significantly greater than 1.57±0.15 and 3.73±0.32 mm in the control group, respectively (P=0.04, P=0.032). The bone thickness at the root of the peri-implant in the experimental group was significantly greater than that in the control group (P=0.007). Specifically, the anterior and premolar regions in the experimental group were 4.31±0.24 and 4.29±0.30 mm, significantly greater than 3.21±0.40 and 4.16±0.30 mm in the control group, respectively (P=0.019 and P=0.009). No significant difference was found in the buccal bone thickness at the crown, middle, and root third of the peri-implant between the experimental and control groups.
conclusionsOn the basis of the results of limited cases, this study demonstrated preoperative occlusion-driven design of the intended fibula segment for implant placement could provide adequate bone volume for endosseous implants, contributing to maximize successful osseointegration and minimize complications for FMR patients.
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.