RESUMO
Introduction: Mandibular reconstruction with the free fibula flap (FFF) has become a standardized procedure. The situation is different with oral rehabilitation, so the purpose of this study was to investigate the frequency of implant placement and prosthetic restoration. Additionally, the patients' situation, motivation, and treatment course were structurally assessed. Materials and methods: All cases between January 2013 and December 2018 that underwent mandibular reconstruction in our department with a free fibula flap and gave written informed consent to participate were interviewed with two structured questionnaires about their restoration and quality of life. Additionally, medical records, general information, status of implants and therapy, and metric analyses of the inserted implants were performed. Results: In total 59 patients were enrolled and analyzed in this monocentric study. Overall, oral rehabilitation was achieved in 23.7% at the time of investigation. In detail, implants were inserted in 37.3% of patients and showed an 83.3% survival of dental implants. Of these implanted patients, dental implants were successfully restored with a prosthetic restoration in 63.6. Within this subgroup, satisfaction with the postoperative aesthetic and functional result was 79.9% and with the oral rehabilitation process was 68.2%. Satisfaction with the implant-borne prosthesis was 87.5%, with non-oral-squamous-cell-carcinoma patients being statistically significantly more content with the handling (p=0.046) and care (p=0.031) of the prosthesis. Discussion: Despite the well-reconstructed bony structures, there is a need to increase the effort of achieving oral rehabilitation, especially looking at the patient's persistent motivation for the procedure.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: New 3D technologies for superficial soft tissue changes, especially in plastic and reconstructive surgical procedures, can improve the planning and documentation of facial surgeries. The purpose of this study was to compare and determine the applicability and feasibility of three different 3D-photography systems in clinical practice imaging the nose. METHODS: A total of 16 healthy non-operated noses were included in this prospective study. A plaster model of each nose was produced, digitized, and converted to a .stl mesh (= ground truth model). Three-dimensional images of each nose were then taken using Artec Space Spider (gold standard), Planmeca ProFace®, and the Bellus3D Dental Pro application. All resulting .stl files were aligned to the ground truth model using MeshLab software, and the root mean square error (RMSE), mean surface distance (MSD), and Hausdorff distance (HD) were calculated. RESULTS: The Artec Space Spider 3D-photography system showed significantly better results compared to the two other systems in regard to RMSE, MSD, and HD (each p < 0.001). There was no significant difference between Planmeca ProFace® and Bellus3D Dental Pro in terms of RMSE, MSD, and HD. Overall, all three camera systems showed a clinically acceptable deviation to the reference model (range: -1.23-1.57 mm). CONCLUSIONS: The three evaluated 3D-photography systems were suitable for nose imaging in the clinical routine. While Artec Space Spider showed the highest accuracy, the Bellus3D Dental Pro app may be the most feasible option for everyday clinical use due to its portability, ease of use, and low cost. This study presents three different systems, allowing readers to extrapolate to other systems when planning to introduce 3D photography in the clinical routine.