Effect of Free Gingival Graft Around Implants in Reconstructed Mandibles With Free Fibula Flaps or Iliac Bone Flaps

IF 3.7 2区医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE

Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research Pub Date : 2025-06-24 DOI:10.1111/cid.70070

Jianfeng Liufu, Yanjun Ge, Xiancheng Zeng, Jiayun Dong, Yifan Kang, Yuru Hu, Ruifang Lu, Xiaofeng Shan, Zhigang Cai

{"title":"Effect of Free Gingival Graft Around Implants in Reconstructed Mandibles With Free Fibula Flaps or Iliac Bone Flaps","authors":"Jianfeng Liufu, Yanjun Ge, Xiancheng Zeng, Jiayun Dong, Yifan Kang, Yuru Hu, Ruifang Lu, Xiaofeng Shan, Zhigang Cai","doi":"10.1111/cid.70070","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Aim</h3>\n \n <p>To compare the efficacy of free gingival graft (FGG) around implants in reconstructed mandibles with free fibula flaps (FFFs) or iliac bone flaps (IBFs).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Materials and Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We included patients receiving mandibular reconstruction with FFFs or IBFs due to the removal of maxillofacial tumors who underwent implant and FGG placement prior to restoration. Clinical data were evaluated before (T0), immediately after (T1), 3 months after (T2), 6 months after (T3) and 1 year after (T4) FGG placement. We analyzed the keratinized mucosa width (KMW) gain and the shrinkage rate.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>A total of 30 patients were enrolled in this study, including 15 patients with 48 implants in the FFFs group and 15 patients with 52 implants in the IBFs group. The buccal KMW gain and shrinkage rate in the FFFs group were not statistically significant compared with the IBFs group at T4. In the IBFs group, the buccal KMW gain and shrinkage rate remained relatively stable after 6 months. The lingual KMW gain in the FFFs group was significantly greater than that in the IBFs group at T4 (2.1 ± 0.2 mm vs. 1.5 ± 0.2 mm, <i>p</i> < 0.05). The lingual shrinkage rate in the FFFs group was significantly smaller than that in the IBFs group at T4 (27.8% ± 5.5% vs. 47.3% ± 5.5%, <i>p</i> < 0.05).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>FGG can reconstruct the keratinized mucosa effectively in a reconstructed mandible. The keratinized mucosa width gain decreases over time.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":50679,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research","volume":"27 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cid.70070","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim

To compare the efficacy of free gingival graft (FGG) around implants in reconstructed mandibles with free fibula flaps (FFFs) or iliac bone flaps (IBFs).

Materials and Methods

We included patients receiving mandibular reconstruction with FFFs or IBFs due to the removal of maxillofacial tumors who underwent implant and FGG placement prior to restoration. Clinical data were evaluated before (T0), immediately after (T1), 3 months after (T2), 6 months after (T3) and 1 year after (T4) FGG placement. We analyzed the keratinized mucosa width (KMW) gain and the shrinkage rate.

Results

A total of 30 patients were enrolled in this study, including 15 patients with 48 implants in the FFFs group and 15 patients with 52 implants in the IBFs group. The buccal KMW gain and shrinkage rate in the FFFs group were not statistically significant compared with the IBFs group at T4. In the IBFs group, the buccal KMW gain and shrinkage rate remained relatively stable after 6 months. The lingual KMW gain in the FFFs group was significantly greater than that in the IBFs group at T4 (2.1 ± 0.2 mm vs. 1.5 ± 0.2 mm, p < 0.05). The lingual shrinkage rate in the FFFs group was significantly smaller than that in the IBFs group at T4 (27.8% ± 5.5% vs. 47.3% ± 5.5%, p < 0.05).

Conclusions

FGG can reconstruct the keratinized mucosa effectively in a reconstructed mandible. The keratinized mucosa width gain decreases over time.

查看原文本刊更多论文

游离腓骨瓣或髂骨瓣重建下颌骨种植体周围游离牙龈移植的效果

目的比较游离腓骨瓣（FFFs）与髂骨瓣（IBFs）修复下颌骨种植体周围游离牙龈移植的效果。材料和方法我们纳入了因颌面部肿瘤切除而接受fff或ibf下颌重建的患者，这些患者在修复前接受了种植体和FGG放置。评估FGG放置前（T0）、放置后立即（T1）、放置后3个月（T2）、放置后6个月（T3）和放置后1年（T4）的临床资料。我们分析了角化后的粘膜宽度（KMW）增益和收缩率。结果本研究共纳入30例患者，其中fff组15例植入48个假体，ibf组15例植入52个假体。在T4时，FFFs组颊部KMW增加和萎缩率与IBFs组比较无统计学意义。在IBFs组，6个月后，颊部KMW的增加和收缩率保持相对稳定。T4时，fff组舌部KMW增加明显大于ibf组（2.1±0.2 mm vs. 1.5±0.2 mm, p < 0.05）。在T4时，FFFs组的舌萎缩率明显小于IBFs组（27.8%±5.5% vs. 47.3%±5.5%,p < 0.05）。结论FGG能有效重建下颌骨角化黏膜。角化后的粘膜宽度随时间增加而减小。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research 医学-牙科与口腔外科

CiteScore

6.00

自引率

13.90%

发文量

103

审稿时长

4-8 weeks

期刊介绍： The goal of Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research is to advance the scientific and technical aspects relating to dental implants and related scientific subjects. Dissemination of new and evolving information related to dental implants and the related science is the primary goal of our journal. The range of topics covered by the journals will include but be not limited to: New scientific developments relating to bone Implant surfaces and their relationship to the surrounding tissues Computer aided implant designs Computer aided prosthetic designs Immediate implant loading Immediate implant placement Materials relating to bone induction and conduction New surgical methods relating to implant placement New materials and methods relating to implant restorations Methods for determining implant stability A primary focus of the journal is publication of evidenced based articles evaluating to new dental implants, techniques and multicenter studies evaluating these treatments. In addition basic science research relating to wound healing and osseointegration will be an important focus for the journal.