Vertical Ridge Augmentation of Fibula Flap in Mandibular Reconstruction: A Comparison between Vertical Distraction, Double-Barrel Flap and Iliac Crest Graft

Double-barrel flap, vertical distraction and iliac crest graft are used to reconstruct the vertical height of the fibula. Twenty-four patients with fibula flap were reconstructed comparing these techniques (eight patients in each group) in terms of height of bone, bone resorption, implant success ra...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of clinical medicine 2020-12, Vol.10 (1), p.101
Hauptverfasser: Navarro Cuéllar, Carlos, Ochandiano Caicoya, Santiago, Navarro Cuéllar, Ignacio, Valladares Pérez, Salvador, Fariña Sirandoni, Rodrigo, Antúnez-Conde, Raúl, Díez Montiel, Alberto, Sánchez Pérez, Arturo, López López, Ana María, Navarro Vila, Carlos, Salmerón Escobar, José Ignacio
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page
container_issue 1
container_start_page 101
container_title Journal of clinical medicine
container_volume 10
creator Navarro Cuéllar, Carlos
Ochandiano Caicoya, Santiago
Navarro Cuéllar, Ignacio
Valladares Pérez, Salvador
Fariña Sirandoni, Rodrigo
Antúnez-Conde, Raúl
Díez Montiel, Alberto
Sánchez Pérez, Arturo
López López, Ana María
Navarro Vila, Carlos
Salmerón Escobar, José Ignacio
description Double-barrel flap, vertical distraction and iliac crest graft are used to reconstruct the vertical height of the fibula. Twenty-four patients with fibula flap were reconstructed comparing these techniques (eight patients in each group) in terms of height of bone, bone resorption, implant success rate and the effects of radiotherapy. The increase in vertical bone with vertical distraction, double-barrel flap and iliac crest was 12.5 ± 0.78 mm, 18.5 ± 0.5 mm, and 17.75 ± 0.6 mm, ( < 0.001). The perimplant bone resorption was 2.31 ± 0.12 mm, 1.23 ± 0.09 mm and 1.43 ± 0.042 mm ( < 0.001), respectively. There were significant differences in vertical bone reconstruction and bone resorption between double-barrel flap and vertical distraction and between iliac crest and vertical distraction ( < 0.001). The study did not show significant differences in implant failure ( = 0.346). Radiotherapy did not affect vertical bone reconstruction ( = 0.125) or bone resorption ( = 0.237) but it showed higher implant failure in radiated patients ( = 0.015). The double-barrel flap and iliac crest graft showed better stability in the height of bone and less bone resorption and higher implant success rates compared with vertical distraction. Radiation therapy did not affect the vertical bone reconstruction but resulted in a higher implant failure.
doi_str_mv 10.3390/jcm10010101
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_7795399</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2475403240</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c409t-dea2b72340fd7acc9083a42605d4a3a0fa6d14aeaf6245b69916f683ebfca3e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdkVFr2zAUhcXYWEvWp70PwV4GmzvZki17D4MsXdpCx6CUvYpr-SpTkK1Uslf6X_ZjpzRtyCohrpC-eziXQ8jbnJ1y3rDPa93njOXb_YIcF0zKjPGavzy4H5GTGNcsrboWRS5fkyOeeivJ5DH5-wvDaDU4em27FdL5tOpxGGG0fqDe0KVtJwd06WBD7UB_wNA9vAR6jdoPcQyT3rJf6JwufL-BYGPqbHG8QxzoXv3MJhQe0E_0zE-tw-wbhIBup5106aWzoOkiYBzpeQAzviGvDLiIJ491Rm6W328WF9nVz_PLxfwq04I1Y9YhFK0suGCmk6B1w2oOoqhY2QngwAxUXS4AwVSFKNuqafLKVDXH1mjgyGfk6052M7U9djrNH8CpTbA9hHvlwar_fwb7W638HyVlU_KmSQIfHgWCv52SfdXbqNE5GNBPURVCloLxIp0Zef8MXfspDGk6VVQiZ7yUjUjUxx2lg48xoNmbyZna5q4Ock_0u0P_e_YpZf4P2wyrDg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2641035794</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Vertical Ridge Augmentation of Fibula Flap in Mandibular Reconstruction: A Comparison between Vertical Distraction, Double-Barrel Flap and Iliac Crest Graft</title><source>PubMed Central Open Access</source><source>PubMed (Medline)</source><source>MDPI - Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute</source><source>EZB Electronic Journals Library</source><creator>Navarro Cuéllar, Carlos ; Ochandiano Caicoya, Santiago ; Navarro Cuéllar, Ignacio ; Valladares Pérez, Salvador ; Fariña Sirandoni, Rodrigo ; Antúnez-Conde, Raúl ; Díez Montiel, Alberto ; Sánchez Pérez, Arturo ; López López, Ana María ; Navarro Vila, Carlos ; Salmerón Escobar, José Ignacio</creator><creatorcontrib>Navarro Cuéllar, Carlos ; Ochandiano Caicoya, Santiago ; Navarro Cuéllar, Ignacio ; Valladares Pérez, Salvador ; Fariña Sirandoni, Rodrigo ; Antúnez-Conde, Raúl ; Díez Montiel, Alberto ; Sánchez Pérez, Arturo ; López López, Ana María ; Navarro Vila, Carlos ; Salmerón Escobar, José Ignacio</creatorcontrib><description>Double-barrel flap, vertical distraction and iliac crest graft are used to reconstruct the vertical height of the fibula. Twenty-four patients with fibula flap were reconstructed comparing these techniques (eight patients in each group) in terms of height of bone, bone resorption, implant success rate and the effects of radiotherapy. The increase in vertical bone with vertical distraction, double-barrel flap and iliac crest was 12.5 ± 0.78 mm, 18.5 ± 0.5 mm, and 17.75 ± 0.6 mm, ( &lt; 0.001). The perimplant bone resorption was 2.31 ± 0.12 mm, 1.23 ± 0.09 mm and 1.43 ± 0.042 mm ( &lt; 0.001), respectively. There were significant differences in vertical bone reconstruction and bone resorption between double-barrel flap and vertical distraction and between iliac crest and vertical distraction ( &lt; 0.001). The study did not show significant differences in implant failure ( = 0.346). Radiotherapy did not affect vertical bone reconstruction ( = 0.125) or bone resorption ( = 0.237) but it showed higher implant failure in radiated patients ( = 0.015). The double-barrel flap and iliac crest graft showed better stability in the height of bone and less bone resorption and higher implant success rates compared with vertical distraction. Radiation therapy did not affect the vertical bone reconstruction but resulted in a higher implant failure.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2077-0383</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2077-0383</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.3390/jcm10010101</identifier><identifier>PMID: 33396707</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Switzerland: MDPI AG</publisher><subject>Clinical medicine ; Dental implants ; General anesthesia ; Hospitals ; Patients ; Prostheses ; Radiation therapy ; Rehabilitation ; Skin &amp; tissue grafts ; Surgery ; Titanium</subject><ispartof>Journal of clinical medicine, 2020-12, Vol.10 (1), p.101</ispartof><rights>2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2020 by the authors. 2020</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c409t-dea2b72340fd7acc9083a42605d4a3a0fa6d14aeaf6245b69916f683ebfca3e3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c409t-dea2b72340fd7acc9083a42605d4a3a0fa6d14aeaf6245b69916f683ebfca3e3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-6740-3619 ; 0000-0001-9869-9240</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7795399/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7795399/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,885,27924,27925,53791,53793</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33396707$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Navarro Cuéllar, Carlos</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ochandiano Caicoya, Santiago</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Navarro Cuéllar, Ignacio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Valladares Pérez, Salvador</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fariña Sirandoni, Rodrigo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Antúnez-Conde, Raúl</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Díez Montiel, Alberto</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sánchez Pérez, Arturo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>López López, Ana María</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Navarro Vila, Carlos</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Salmerón Escobar, José Ignacio</creatorcontrib><title>Vertical Ridge Augmentation of Fibula Flap in Mandibular Reconstruction: A Comparison between Vertical Distraction, Double-Barrel Flap and Iliac Crest Graft</title><title>Journal of clinical medicine</title><addtitle>J Clin Med</addtitle><description>Double-barrel flap, vertical distraction and iliac crest graft are used to reconstruct the vertical height of the fibula. Twenty-four patients with fibula flap were reconstructed comparing these techniques (eight patients in each group) in terms of height of bone, bone resorption, implant success rate and the effects of radiotherapy. The increase in vertical bone with vertical distraction, double-barrel flap and iliac crest was 12.5 ± 0.78 mm, 18.5 ± 0.5 mm, and 17.75 ± 0.6 mm, ( &lt; 0.001). The perimplant bone resorption was 2.31 ± 0.12 mm, 1.23 ± 0.09 mm and 1.43 ± 0.042 mm ( &lt; 0.001), respectively. There were significant differences in vertical bone reconstruction and bone resorption between double-barrel flap and vertical distraction and between iliac crest and vertical distraction ( &lt; 0.001). The study did not show significant differences in implant failure ( = 0.346). Radiotherapy did not affect vertical bone reconstruction ( = 0.125) or bone resorption ( = 0.237) but it showed higher implant failure in radiated patients ( = 0.015). The double-barrel flap and iliac crest graft showed better stability in the height of bone and less bone resorption and higher implant success rates compared with vertical distraction. Radiation therapy did not affect the vertical bone reconstruction but resulted in a higher implant failure.</description><subject>Clinical medicine</subject><subject>Dental implants</subject><subject>General anesthesia</subject><subject>Hospitals</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Prostheses</subject><subject>Radiation therapy</subject><subject>Rehabilitation</subject><subject>Skin &amp; tissue grafts</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><subject>Titanium</subject><issn>2077-0383</issn><issn>2077-0383</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><recordid>eNpdkVFr2zAUhcXYWEvWp70PwV4GmzvZki17D4MsXdpCx6CUvYpr-SpTkK1Uslf6X_ZjpzRtyCohrpC-eziXQ8jbnJ1y3rDPa93njOXb_YIcF0zKjPGavzy4H5GTGNcsrboWRS5fkyOeeivJ5DH5-wvDaDU4em27FdL5tOpxGGG0fqDe0KVtJwd06WBD7UB_wNA9vAR6jdoPcQyT3rJf6JwufL-BYGPqbHG8QxzoXv3MJhQe0E_0zE-tw-wbhIBup5106aWzoOkiYBzpeQAzviGvDLiIJ491Rm6W328WF9nVz_PLxfwq04I1Y9YhFK0suGCmk6B1w2oOoqhY2QngwAxUXS4AwVSFKNuqafLKVDXH1mjgyGfk6052M7U9djrNH8CpTbA9hHvlwar_fwb7W638HyVlU_KmSQIfHgWCv52SfdXbqNE5GNBPURVCloLxIp0Zef8MXfspDGk6VVQiZ7yUjUjUxx2lg48xoNmbyZna5q4Ock_0u0P_e_YpZf4P2wyrDg</recordid><startdate>20201230</startdate><enddate>20201230</enddate><creator>Navarro Cuéllar, Carlos</creator><creator>Ochandiano Caicoya, Santiago</creator><creator>Navarro Cuéllar, Ignacio</creator><creator>Valladares Pérez, Salvador</creator><creator>Fariña Sirandoni, Rodrigo</creator><creator>Antúnez-Conde, Raúl</creator><creator>Díez Montiel, Alberto</creator><creator>Sánchez Pérez, Arturo</creator><creator>López López, Ana María</creator><creator>Navarro Vila, Carlos</creator><creator>Salmerón Escobar, José Ignacio</creator><general>MDPI AG</general><general>MDPI</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6740-3619</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9869-9240</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20201230</creationdate><title>Vertical Ridge Augmentation of Fibula Flap in Mandibular Reconstruction: A Comparison between Vertical Distraction, Double-Barrel Flap and Iliac Crest Graft</title><author>Navarro Cuéllar, Carlos ; Ochandiano Caicoya, Santiago ; Navarro Cuéllar, Ignacio ; Valladares Pérez, Salvador ; Fariña Sirandoni, Rodrigo ; Antúnez-Conde, Raúl ; Díez Montiel, Alberto ; Sánchez Pérez, Arturo ; López López, Ana María ; Navarro Vila, Carlos ; Salmerón Escobar, José Ignacio</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c409t-dea2b72340fd7acc9083a42605d4a3a0fa6d14aeaf6245b69916f683ebfca3e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Clinical medicine</topic><topic>Dental implants</topic><topic>General anesthesia</topic><topic>Hospitals</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Prostheses</topic><topic>Radiation therapy</topic><topic>Rehabilitation</topic><topic>Skin &amp; tissue grafts</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><topic>Titanium</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Navarro Cuéllar, Carlos</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ochandiano Caicoya, Santiago</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Navarro Cuéllar, Ignacio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Valladares Pérez, Salvador</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fariña Sirandoni, Rodrigo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Antúnez-Conde, Raúl</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Díez Montiel, Alberto</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sánchez Pérez, Arturo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>López López, Ana María</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Navarro Vila, Carlos</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Salmerón Escobar, José Ignacio</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Proquest)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>AUTh Library subscriptions: ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Publicly Available Content database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Journal of clinical medicine</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Navarro Cuéllar, Carlos</au><au>Ochandiano Caicoya, Santiago</au><au>Navarro Cuéllar, Ignacio</au><au>Valladares Pérez, Salvador</au><au>Fariña Sirandoni, Rodrigo</au><au>Antúnez-Conde, Raúl</au><au>Díez Montiel, Alberto</au><au>Sánchez Pérez, Arturo</au><au>López López, Ana María</au><au>Navarro Vila, Carlos</au><au>Salmerón Escobar, José Ignacio</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Vertical Ridge Augmentation of Fibula Flap in Mandibular Reconstruction: A Comparison between Vertical Distraction, Double-Barrel Flap and Iliac Crest Graft</atitle><jtitle>Journal of clinical medicine</jtitle><addtitle>J Clin Med</addtitle><date>2020-12-30</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>10</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>101</spage><pages>101-</pages><issn>2077-0383</issn><eissn>2077-0383</eissn><abstract>Double-barrel flap, vertical distraction and iliac crest graft are used to reconstruct the vertical height of the fibula. Twenty-four patients with fibula flap were reconstructed comparing these techniques (eight patients in each group) in terms of height of bone, bone resorption, implant success rate and the effects of radiotherapy. The increase in vertical bone with vertical distraction, double-barrel flap and iliac crest was 12.5 ± 0.78 mm, 18.5 ± 0.5 mm, and 17.75 ± 0.6 mm, ( &lt; 0.001). The perimplant bone resorption was 2.31 ± 0.12 mm, 1.23 ± 0.09 mm and 1.43 ± 0.042 mm ( &lt; 0.001), respectively. There were significant differences in vertical bone reconstruction and bone resorption between double-barrel flap and vertical distraction and between iliac crest and vertical distraction ( &lt; 0.001). The study did not show significant differences in implant failure ( = 0.346). Radiotherapy did not affect vertical bone reconstruction ( = 0.125) or bone resorption ( = 0.237) but it showed higher implant failure in radiated patients ( = 0.015). The double-barrel flap and iliac crest graft showed better stability in the height of bone and less bone resorption and higher implant success rates compared with vertical distraction. Radiation therapy did not affect the vertical bone reconstruction but resulted in a higher implant failure.</abstract><cop>Switzerland</cop><pub>MDPI AG</pub><pmid>33396707</pmid><doi>10.3390/jcm10010101</doi><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6740-3619</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9869-9240</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 2077-0383
ispartof Journal of clinical medicine, 2020-12, Vol.10 (1), p.101
issn 2077-0383
2077-0383
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_7795399
source PubMed Central Open Access; PubMed (Medline); MDPI - Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute; EZB Electronic Journals Library
subjects Clinical medicine
Dental implants
General anesthesia
Hospitals
Patients
Prostheses
Radiation therapy
Rehabilitation
Skin & tissue grafts
Surgery
Titanium
title Vertical Ridge Augmentation of Fibula Flap in Mandibular Reconstruction: A Comparison between Vertical Distraction, Double-Barrel Flap and Iliac Crest Graft
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-25T06%3A01%3A27IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Vertical%20Ridge%20Augmentation%20of%20Fibula%20Flap%20in%20Mandibular%20Reconstruction:%20A%20Comparison%20between%20Vertical%20Distraction,%20Double-Barrel%20Flap%20and%20Iliac%20Crest%20Graft&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20clinical%20medicine&rft.au=Navarro%20Cu%C3%A9llar,%20Carlos&rft.date=2020-12-30&rft.volume=10&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=101&rft.pages=101-&rft.issn=2077-0383&rft.eissn=2077-0383&rft_id=info:doi/10.3390/jcm10010101&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2475403240%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2641035794&rft_id=info:pmid/33396707&rfr_iscdi=true