ABSTRACT
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.
ABSTRACT
Background: Mandibular reconstruction with the fibula free flap (FFF) is performed freehand, CAD/CAM-assisted, or by using partially adjustable resection/reconstruction aids. The two latter options represent the contemporary reconstructive solutions of the recent decade. The purpose of this study was to compare both auxiliary techniques with regard to feasibility, accuracy, and operative parameters. Methods and materials: The first twenty consecutively operated patients requiring a mandibular reconstruction (within angle-to-angle) with the FFF using the partially adjustable resection aids between January 2017 and December 2019 at our department were included. Additionally, matching CAD/CAM FFF cases were used as control group in this cross-sectional study. Medical records and general information (sex, age, indication for surgery, extent of resection, number of segments, duration of surgery, and ischemia time) were analyzed. In addition, the pre- and postoperative Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine data of the mandibles were converted to standard tessellation language (.stl) files. Conventional measurements - six horizontal distances (A-F) and temporo-mandibular joint (TMJ) spaces - and the root mean square error (RMSE) for three-dimensional analysis were measured and calculated. Results: In total, 40 patients were enrolled (20:20). Overall operation time, ischemia time, and the interval between ischemia time start until end of operation showed no significant differences. No significant difference between the two groups were revealed in conventional measurements of distances (A-D) and TMJ spaces. The Δ differences for the distance F (between the mandibular foramina) and the right medial joint space were significantly lower in the ReconGuide group. The RMSE analysis of the two groups showed no significant difference (p=0.925), with an overall median RMSE of 3.1 mm (2.2-3.7) in the CAD/CAM and 2.9 mm (2.2-3.8) in the ReconGuide groups. Conclusions: The reconstructive surgeon can achieve comparable postoperative results regardless of technique, which may favor the ReconGuide use in mandibular angle-to-angle reconstruction over the CAD/CAM technique because of less preoperative planning time and lower costs per case.