Osseous Union after Mandible Reconstruction with Fibula Free Flap Using Manually Bent Plates vs. Patient-Specific Implants: A Retrospective Analysis of 89 Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this monocentric, retrospective clinical study was to evaluate the status of osseous union in uni- and poly-segmental mandible reconstructions regarding conventional angle-stable manually bent osteosynthesis plates (Unilock 2.0 mm) versus titan laser-melted PSI patient-specific implant’s (PSI). The clinical impact of PSI’s high stiffness fixation methods on bone healing and regeneration is still not well addressed. The special interest was in evaluating the ossification of junctions between mandible and fibula and between osteotomized fibula free flap (FFF) segments. Panoramic radiograph (OPT), computed tomography (CT) scans, or cone-beam CTs (CBCT) of patients who underwent successful FFF for mandible reconstruction from January 2005 to December 2020 were analyzed. A total number of 89 cases (28 females (31.5%), 61 males (68.5%), mean age 58.2 ± 11.3 years, range: 22.8–82.7 years) fulfilled the chosen inclusion criteria for analysis (conventional: n = 44 vs. PSI: n = 45). The present study found an overall incomplete ossification (IOU) rate of 24.7% (conventional: 13.6% vs. PSI: 35.6%; p = 0.017) for mandible to fibula and intersegmental junctions. Between osteotomized FFF segments, an IOU rate of 16% was found in the PSI-group, while no IOU was recorded in the conventional group (p = 0.015). Significant differences were registered for IOU rates in poly-segmental (p = 0.041), and lateral (p = 0.016) mandibular reconstructions when PSI was used. Multivariate logistic regression analysis identified plate exposure and type of plate used as independent risk factors for IOU. Previous or adjuvant radiotherapy did not impact incomplete osseous union in the evaluated study sample. PSI is more rigid than bent mini-plates and shields functional mechanical stimuli, and is the main reason for increasing the rate of incomplete ossification. To enhance the functional stimulus for ossification it has to be discussed if patient-specific implants can be designed to be thinner, and should be divided into segmental plates. This directs chewing forces through the bone and improves physiological bone remodeling.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".