Clinical Outcomes after Primary Implantation into Modified One-and-a-Half-Barrel Fibula Free Flap Reconstructed Mandible
Dan Yu,Youkang Ni,Ranran Chen,Jianyao Huang,Jianhua Liu,Huiyong Zhu
DOI: https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.9146
2022-01-01
Abstract:Purpose: The aim of this study was to introduce and evaluate a modified one-and-a-half-barrel fibular technique guided by occlusion for functionally reconstructing mandibular defects. Materials and Methods: Fifteen patients underwent mandibular reconstruction with the modified one-and-a-half-barrel technique and simultaneous insertion of dental implants. A vascularized fibular segment was used to reconstruct the alveolar ridge of the neomandible with dental implants loaded simultaneously. The inferior border was reconstructed with a nonvascularized segment. Panoramic radiographs were taken 1 week, 6 months, and 12 months after the surgery to measure the vertical height of the fibular segment, calculate the bone resorption rate at different time points, and observe the implant marginal bone loss and crown-to-implant ratio. The OHIP-14 questionnaire was employed to evaluate the perceived outcomes of oral rehabilitation. Results: The vertical height of the vascularized and nonvascularized fibular segments 1 week, 6 months, and 12 months after the surgery was 14.51 +/- 1.93, 14.19 +/- 1.88, and 13.81 +/- 1.78 mm; and 8.65 +/- 0.98, 7.72 +/- 0.94, and 7.25 +/- 0.93 mm, respectively. The bone resorption rate of vascularized and nonvascularized fibular segments was 2.20% +/- 1.04% and 10.69% +/- 5.73%, respectively, in the first 6 months, and 2.67% +/- 1.44% and 6.16% +/- 2.75%, respectively, in the latter 6 months, showing a significantly higher resorption rate in the nonvascularized segment (P<.05). The implant marginal bone loss after functional loading was significantly greater than that before dental rehabilitation (P=.001). The OHIP-14 total scores were 20.07 +/- 10.24, 19.00 +/- 7.82, and 3.93 +/- 1.87 before surgery, at 6 months, and at 12 months after surgery, respectively (P =.000). Conclusion: The proposed technique not only guarantees the esthetic appearance of patients but also achieves a suitable vertical height to facilitate the placement of the implant at the same time.