Effect of Free Gingival Graft Around Implants in Reconstructed Mandibles With Free Fibula Flaps or Iliac Bone Flaps
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To compare the efficacy of free gingival graft (FGG) around implants in reconstructed mandibles with free fibula flaps (FFFs) or iliac bone flaps (IBFs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We included patients receiving mandibular reconstruction with FFFs or IBFs due to the removal of maxillofacial tumors who underwent implant and FGG placement prior to restoration. Clinical data were evaluated before (T0), immediately after (T1), 3 months after (T2), 6 months after (T3) and 1 year after (T4) FGG placement. We analyzed the keratinized mucosa width (KMW) gain and the shrinkage rate. RESULTS: A total of 30 patients were enrolled in this study, including 15 patients with 48 implants in the FFFs group and 15 patients with 52 implants in the IBFs group. The buccal KMW gain and shrinkage rate in the FFFs group were not statistically significant compared with the IBFs group at T4. In the IBFs group, the buccal KMW gain and shrinkage rate remained relatively stable after 6 months. The lingual KMW gain in the FFFs group was significantly greater than that in the IBFs group at T4 (2.1 ± 0.2 mm vs. 1.5 ± 0.2 mm, p < 0.05). The lingual shrinkage rate in the FFFs group was significantly smaller than that in the IBFs group at T4 (27.8% ± 5.5% vs. 47.3% ± 5.5%, p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: FGG can reconstruct the keratinized mucosa effectively in a reconstructed mandible. The keratinized mucosa width gain decreases over time.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".