Prefabricated Fibula Flap vs Bone-Driven and Delayed Implant Installation for Jaw Reconstruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Importance: Restoration of dental occlusion and oral rehabilitation is the ultimate goal of functional jaw reconstruction. Objective: To evaluate the prefabricated fibula flap (PFF) technique in occlusion-driven jaw reconstruction for benign or previously treated malignant disease. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study was conducted from January 2000 to December 2019 at the University of Alberta Hospital and Institute of Reconstructive Sciences in Medicine in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, among patients who underwent PFF or bone-driven and delayed osseointegrated implant installation (BDD). Patients were followed up for a minimum of 1 year after occlusal rehabilitation. Data were analyzed from July 2021 to June 2022. Exposures: Patients underwent BDD or PFF, which consists of osseointegrated dental implant installation and skin grafting of the fibular bone 3 to 6 months before jaw tumor resection or defect reconstruction. The implant osseointegration is completed at the time of jaw reconstruction, allowing for full reconstruction, loading, and restoration of the dental occlusion in the immediate postoperative period. Main outcomes and Measure: Safety, effectiveness, accuracy, timeliness of occlusal reconstruction, and aesthetic appeal were compared between PFF and BDD. Groups were compared for the following variables: postoperative complications, number of bony segments used, number of procedures needed, total operative time, time to occlusal rehabilitation, and number of implants installed, exposed, lost, and used (ie, exposed implants - lost implants). Aesthetic appeal was assessed using standardized full-face and profile digital photographs taken before and 6 to 12 months after the operation and analyzed by 3 naive raters. Results: Among 9 patients receiving PFF (mean [SD] age, 43.3 [13.0] years; 7 men [77.8%]) and 12 patients receiving BDD (mean [SD] age, 41.9 [18.0] years; 8 men [66.7%]), the overall complication rate was similar (4 patients [44.4%] vs 3 patients [25.0%], respectively; relative risk, 1.78 [95% CI, 0.52 to 6.04]). The number of patients with implant loss was similar between PFF and BDD groups (0 patients vs 3 patients [25.0%], respectively; difference, -25.0 percentage points [95% CI, -48.4 to 9.7 percentage points]). PFF had a clinically meaningful faster mean (SD) occlusal rehabilitation compared with BDD (12.1 [1.9] months vs 60.4 [23.1] months; difference, -48.3 months [95% CI, -64.5 to -32.0 months]). The mean (SD) difference in preoperative to postoperative aesthetic score was similar between PFF and BDD groups (-0.8 [1.5] vs -0.2 [0.8]; difference, -0.6 [95% CI, -1.6 to 0.4]). Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that PFF compared with BDD was a safe, effective, and aesthetic reconstructive option for patients with benign or previously treated jaw malignant tumors. This technique may provide rapid occlusal reconstruction and oral rehabilitation.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".