Assessment of Postoperative Functional and Aesthetic Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Maxillofacial Reconstruction Following Mandibular Trauma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Mandibular fractures are the most common maxillofacial injuries and significantly affect mastication, speech, occlusion, and aesthetics. Reconstruction aims not only to restore anatomy but also to re-establish function and appearance, which together determine quality of life. However, regional data on combined functional and aesthetic outcomes following mandibular reconstruction remain scarce. Objectives: To assess postoperative functional and aesthetic outcomes in patients undergoing maxillofacial reconstruction following mandibular trauma. Methods: This prospective observational study was conducted at the Burns and Plastic Surgery Center, Peshawar, and the Department of Surgery, Punjab Dental Hospital, Lahore, from January 2022 to June 2023. A total of 100 patients with traumatic mandibular fractures were included. All underwent open reduction and internal fixation, with autologous bone grafting in selected complex cases. Functional outcomes were assessed by occlusion stability, mastication efficiency, mandibular range of motion, and speech clarity. Aesthetic outcomes were evaluated by surgeon-based assessment of facial symmetry, patient-reported satisfaction using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), and scar quality with the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS). Data were analyzed using SPSS v26, with p<0.05 considered significant. Results: Of 100 patients (74 males, 26 females; mean age 31.6 ± 10.2 years), road traffic accidents were the main cause (68%). At six months, 85% achieved stable occlusion, 80% restored mastication, 88% regained normal mandibular mobility, and 86% achieved speech clarity. Surgeon-rated aesthetic satisfaction was 89%, while mean patient VAS score was 8.4. Visible scars and minor asymmetry accounted for dissatisfaction in 22%. Conclusion: Maxillofacial reconstruction after mandibular trauma significantly improves both function and aesthetics. Persistent issues such as speech difficulties and scarring highlight the need for multidisciplinary follow-up to optimize outcomes. Keywords: mandibular trauma, maxillofacial reconstruction, functional outcomes, aesthetic outcomes
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".