EDP Sciences logo
Submit your paper
Search
Menu
Home All issues Volume 31 / No 1 (2025) J Oral Med Oral Surg, 31 1 (2025) 9 Full HTML
Open Access

Table I

Study Characteristics of Included Studies.

S. No Author Year Study design Total number of subjects Follow up period Primary Outcome - Mouth opening
(mm)		 Additional outcome assessed
Oral commissural width (mm)		 Complications Conclusion
Total Groups Male: Mean Age Group Pre 1 week 1mt 3 mts 6 mts 12 mts Group Pre Post
Sample Female (years) operative operative operative
1 Agrawal et al [9] 2017 nRCT 32 I- BFP- 21 II- NLF- 11     3:1 21-30 3 and 6 months I 10.5     30.5 ± 3.6 29.7 ± 3.5           Reconstruction with a NLF was superior to the BFP flap for mouth opening.
II 10.5     32.21±5.1 33 ± 5.8  
2 Anehosur et al [10]
 		 2021 RCT 30 I- BFP-15 II- NLF-15     9:1 (27, 3) 17 to 45 12 months 1 12 + 3         27 + 3 I 52.13 51   NLF is superior to BFP
II 11 + 3         38 + 3 II 51 60
3 Bande et al [11] 2012 RCT 20 I- PMMF- 10 II- NLF-10     9:1 (18, 2) 29.5 6 month and 3 years I 11         41 I 46 46 1.Nasolabial group: partial flap necrosis, temporary widening of the oral commissure, unsightly extraoral scars ,subluxation of the temporo-mandibular joint, perforation of the palate
2. Platysma group -temporary paraesthesia, subluxation of the mandible, and a scar on the neck		 PMMF is a better option than an extended nasolabial flap in terms of extraoral facial scar.
II 12         40 II 46 49
4 Jain et al [12] 2022 RCT 10 I- BFP-5 II- NLF-5     10:0 36.5 1 and 6 months I 10.5 ± 8.8   28.25 ± 1.7   29 ± 2.2         NLF is superior to BFP
II 12±5.3   29.4 ± 3.6   32.6 ± 1.8  
5 Kania et al [13] 2022 RCT 30 I- non-vascularized ADFG-15 II- NLF-15     4:1 27.37 ± 3.35 3, 6 and 18 months I 1.93   30.27   21.13   I 55.3 53.38 Graft necrosis, Hair growth, Commissure tear NLF is superior to non-vascularized ADFG
II 1.87   33.87   36   II 55.46 56.11
6 Mehrotra et al [14] 2009 RCT 100 I- BFP-25 II- Tongue III-NLF- 25 IV-STSG-25 69:31 10.67 2-5 years I 14.88       35.39 34.92         BFP graft was the most feasible graft compared with
tongue flap.
  14.96       34.36 34.16
  14.68       35.52 35.52
  14.76       35.24 35.08
7 Mukherjee et al [15] 2019 nRCT 10 I- BFP-5 II-temporoparietal fascia flap- 5     10:0 - 6 months I 17 49.8     38.4           BFP graft superior to extended NLF
II 8 44.6     18.4  
8 Patil et al [16] 2016 RCT 8 I -Extended NLF- 4 II - BFP- 4     10:0 21 to 65 12 months I 8.5     33.25 30.5 30         BFP graft superior to extended NLF
II 11     36.75 36.50 36.50
9 Rai et al [17] 2013 nRCT 20 I- NLF-10 II BFP- 4         12 months I 10         42   42 44.9 Immediate
1. Subluxation
2. Distortion of commissure
3. Perforation of soft palate
4. Partial flap necrosis
5. Postoperative infection Delayed
1. Fish mouth		 BFP is the better choice for reconstruction in comparison to NLF.
II 10         41   53.38 56.11
10 Singh et al [18] 2023 nRCT 152 I- NLF- 49 II- BFP- 65 III- PMMF- 38   1:0.52 48.7± 4.57 12–48 months I 13.94 ± 2.97     33.25 39.71±2.82 36.69±3.41   51.54±2.33 54.11±1   Inter commissural distance is maximum with PMMF.
Significant decrease in both mouth opening and
commissural distance from immediate post operative period
to 1 year
II 13.86 ± 1.0     36.75 39.71±2.82 36.69±3.41   51.43±2.28 56.84±1.48
III 13.66 ±3.42       40.66±1.71 39.84±1.65   51.45±2.3 59.21±0.99

RCT Randomized Controlled Trial, nRCT non Randomized Controlled Trial, BFP Buccal fat pad; NLF Nasolabial Flap; PMMF Platysma myocutaneous muscle flap; ADFG Abdominal dermal fat graft; STSG Split thickness skin graft.

Total number of patients – 412.

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.