Prefabricated Fibula Flap vs Bone-Driven and Delayed Implant Installation for Jaw Reconstruction

Abstract

ImportanceRestoration of dental occlusion and oral rehabilitation is the ultimate goal of functional jaw reconstruction.ObjectiveTo evaluate the prefabricated fibula flap (PFF) technique in occlusion-driven jaw reconstruction for benign or previously treated malignant disease.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis cohort study was conducted from January 2000 to December 2019 at the University of Alberta Hospital and Institute of Reconstructive Sciences in Medicine in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, among patients who underwent PFF or bone-driven and delayed osseointegrated implant installation (BDD). Patients were followed up for a minimum of 1 year after occlusal rehabilitation. Data were analyzed from July 2021 to June 2022.ExposuresPatients underwent BDD or PFF, which consists of osseointegrated dental implant installation and skin grafting of the fibular bone 3 to 6 months before jaw tumor resection or defect reconstruction. The implant osseointegration is completed at the time of jaw reconstruction, allowing for full reconstruction, loading, and restoration of the dental occlusion in the immediate postoperative period.Main outcomes and MeasureSafety, effectiveness, accuracy, timeliness of occlusal reconstruction, and aesthetic appeal were compared between PFF and BDD. Groups were compared for the following variables: postoperative complications, number of bony segments used, number of procedures needed, total operative time, time to occlusal rehabilitation, and number of implants installed, exposed, lost, and used (ie, exposed implants – lost implants). Aesthetic appeal was assessed using standardized full-face and profile digital photographs taken before and 6 to 12 months after the operation and analyzed by 3 naive raters.ResultsAmong 9 patients receiving PFF (mean [SD] age, 43.3 [13.0] years; 7 men [77.8%]) and 12 patients receiving BDD (mean [SD] age, 41.9 [18.0] years; 8 men [66.7%]), the overall complication rate was similar (4 patients [44.4%] vs 3 patients [25.0%], respectively; relative risk, 1.78 [95% CI, 0.52 to 6.04]). The number of patients with implant loss was similar between PFF and BDD groups (0 patients vs 3 patients [25.0%], respectively; difference, −25.0 percentage points [95% CI, −48.4 to 9.7 percentage points]). PFF had a clinically meaningful faster mean (SD) occlusal rehabilitation compared with BDD (12.1 [1.9] months vs 60.4 [23.1] months; difference, −48.3 months [95% CI, −64.5 to −32.0 months]). The mean (SD) difference in preoperative to postoperative aesthetic score was similar between PFF and BDD groups (−0.8 [1.5] vs −0.2 [0.8]; difference, −0.6 [95% CI, −1.6 to 0.4]).Conclusions and RelevanceThis study found that PFF compared with BDD was a safe, effective, and aesthetic reconstructive option for patients with benign or previously treated jaw malignant tumors. This technique may provide rapid occlusal reconstruction and oral rehabilitation.