Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences) >
One-stage mandibular reconstruction combining iliac flap with immediate implant-based denture
Received date: 2024-09-25
Online published: 2025-01-25
Supported by
Capital' s Funds for Health Improvement and Research(CFH2024-2-4104)
Copyright
Objective: To evaluate the clinical outcomes and define the indications for a one-stage mandibular reconstruction technique that combines iliac bone flaps with immediate implant-based dentures, and to assess both the accuracy of surgical planning and the long-term success of the procedure. Methods: A total of ten patients underwent the procedure at Peking University Hospital of Stomatology between June 2020 and August 2023. The preoperative biopsy pathology of all the patients confirmed a benign tumor. In this technique, iliac bone flaps were used for mandibular reconstruction, and immediate implant-based dentures were placed during the same surgical session. Various outcome measures were evaluated, including the accuracy of the surgical reconstruction, implant placement deviations (entry point, apical point, depth, and angle), and long-term outcomes, such as cervical bone resorption, implant survival, and the cumulative survival rate. Results: Thirty-eight implants were successfully inserted into the iliac flaps of the ten patients. The median follow-up duration was 23.5 months, and no significant complications occurred during the follow-up period, such as infections, titanium plate exposure, implant loosening, or damage to the implants and dentures. The accuracy of preoperative virtual surgical planning (VSP) was highly reliable. The repeatability of the VSP model compared to the postoperative reconstructed mandible was as follows: 67.82% ±10.16% within 1 mm, 82.14% ±6.58% within 2 mm, and 90.61% ±4.62% within 3 mm. The average maximum deviation from the plan was (6.10±0.89) mm, with an average overall deviation of (1.14±0.31) mm. For the implants, deviations in critical parameters were as follows: entry point deviation was (2.02±0.58) mm, apical point deviation was (2.25± 0.66) mm, depth deviation was (1.26±0.51) mm, and angular deviation was 1.84°±1.10°. The implant survival rate remained 100% during the follow-up, with a cumulative survival rate of 97.37% from 1 to 4 years. Average cervical bone resorption was 0.94 mm. Conclusion: The combination of iliac bone flaps with immediate implant-based dentures for one-stage mandibular reconstruction demonstrated pro-mising clinical outcomes, including high implant survival and minimal complications. This technique proved to be safe and reliable for mandibular reconstruction. However, further studies with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up periods are necessary to confirm the long-term efficacy and optimal indications for this procedure.
Yifan KANG , Yanjun GE , Xiaoming LV , Shang XIE , Xiaofeng SHAN , Zhigang CAI . One-stage mandibular reconstruction combining iliac flap with immediate implant-based denture[J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2025 , 57(1) : 78 -84 . DOI: 10.19723/j.issn.1671-167X.2025.01.012
| 1 | Hidalgo DA . Fibula free flap: A new method of mandible reconstruction[J]. Plast Reconstr Surg, 1989, 84 (1): 71- 79. |
| 2 | Taylor GI , Townsend P , Corlett R . Superiority of the deep circumflex iliac vessels as the supply for free groin flaps. Clinical work[J]. Plast Reconstr Surg, 1979, 64 (6): 745- 759. |
| 3 | Cuesta-Gil M , Ochandiano Caicoya S , Riba-García F , et al. Oral rehabilitation with osseointegrated implants in oncologic patients[J]. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2009, 67 (11): 2485- 2496. |
| 4 | Zhu HW , Zhang L , Cai ZG , et al. Dental implant rehabilitation after jaw reconstruction assisted by virtual surgical planning[J]. Int J Oral Max Impl, 2019, 34 (5): 1219- 1226. |
| 5 | Zhang L , Ding Q , Liu C , et al. Survival, function, and complications of oral implants placed in bone flaps in jaw rehabilitation: A systematic review[J]. Int J Prosthodont, 2016, 29 (2): 115- 125. |
| 6 | Urken ML , Buchbinder D , Weinberg H , et al. Primary placement of osseointegrated implants in microvascular mandibular reconstruction[J]. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, 1989, 101 (1): 56- 73. |
| 7 | Rohner D , Jaquiery C , Kunz C , et al. Maxillofacial reconstruction with prefabricated osseous free flaps: A 3-year experience with 24 patients[J]. Plast Reconstr Surg, 2003, 112 (3): 748- 757. |
| 8 | Levine JP , Bae JS , Soares M , et al. Jaw in a day: Total maxillofacial reconstruction using digital technology[J]. Plast Reconstr Surg, 2013, 131 (6): 1386- 1391. |
| 9 | 邹四海, 付小明, 喻娜, 等. 下颌骨与种植体支持的牙列同日重建一例[J]. 中华口腔医学杂志, 2021, 56 (12): 1267- 1270. |
| 10 | Yang ZY , Kang YF , Lv XM , et al. Iliac crest towards alveolar processes or mandibular inferior margin in mandibular reconstruction with a vascularized iliac bone flap: Which is better?[J]. Clin Oral Investig, 2023, 27 (2): 751- 758. |
| 11 | Kang YF , Ge YJ , Lv XM , et al. One-stage jaw reconstruction and prosthetic rehabilitation with an iliac flap: A case report and literature review[J]. Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg, 2024, 46 (1): 3. |
| 12 | Runyan CM , Sharma V , Staffenberg DA , et al. Jaw in a day: State of the art in maxillary reconstruction[J]. J Craniofac Surg, 2016, 27 (8): 2101- 2104. |
| 13 | Qaisi M , Kolodney H , Swedenburg G , et al. Fibula jaw in a day: State of the art in maxillofacial reconstruction[J]. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2016, 74 (6): 1284. e1- 1284. e15. |
| 14 | Patel A , Harrison P , Cheng A , et al. Fibular reconstruction of the maxilla and mandible with immediate implant-supported prosthetic rehabilitation: Jaw in a day[J]. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am, 2019, 31 (3): 369- 386. |
| 15 | Khatib B , Cheng A , Sim F , et al. Challenges with the jaw in a day technique[J]. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2020, 78 (10): 1869. e1- 1869. e10. |
| 16 | Sukato DC , Hammer D , Wang W , et al. Experience with "jaw in a day" technique[J]. J Craniofac Surg, 2020, 31 (5): 1212- 1217. |
| 17 | Chang YM , Wei FC . Fibula jaw-in-a-day with minimal computer-aided design and manufacturing: Maximizing efficiency, cost-effectiveness, intraoperative flexibility, and quality[J]. Plast Reconstr Surg, 2021, 147 (2): 476- 479. |
| 18 | Panchal H , Shamsunder MG , Petrovic I , et al. Dental implant survival in vascularized bone flaps: A systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Plast Reconstr Surg, 2020, 146 (3): 637- 648. |
| 19 | Khadembaschi D , Brierly GI , Chatfield MD , et al. Systematic review and pooled analysis of survival rates, success, and outcomes of osseointegrated implants in a variety of composite free flaps[J]. Head Neck, 2020, 42 (9): 2669- 2686. |
| 20 | Kang YF , Ding MK , Qiu SY , et al. Mandibular reconstruction using iliac flap based on occlusion-driven workflow transferred by digital surgical guides[J]. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2022, 80 (11): 1858- 1865. |
| 21 | Kang YF , Ge YJ , Ding MK , et al. A comparison of accuracy among different approaches of static-guided implant placement in patients treated with mandibular reconstruction: A retrospective study[J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2024, 35 (3): 251- 257. |
| 22 | Shan XF , Han D , Ge YJ , et al. Clinical outcomes of keratinized mucosa augmentation in jaws reconstructed with fibula or iliac bone flaps[J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2022, 51 (7): 949- 956. |
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |