RESUMEN
Background: Mandibular defects resulting from oncological treatment pose significant aesthetic and functional challenges due to the involvement of bone and soft tissues. Immediate reconstruction is crucial to address complications such as malocclusion, mandibular deviation, temporomandibular joint (TMJ) changes, and soft tissue retraction. These issues can lead to functional impairments, including difficulties in chewing, swallowing, and speech. The fibula flap is widely used for mandibular reconstruction due to its long bone segment and robust vascular supply, though it may not always provide adequate bone height for optimal dental rehabilitation. This systematic review aims to determine if the double-barreled fibula flap (DBFF) configuration is a viable alternative for mandibular reconstruction and to evaluate the outcomes of dental implants placed in this type of flap. Materials and Methods: This study adhered to the Cochrane Collaboration criteria and PRISMA guidelines and was registered on the International Platform of Registered Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols Database (INPLASY2023120026). We included clinical studies published in English, Spanish, or French that focused on adult patients undergoing segmental mandibulectomy followed by DBFF reconstruction and dental rehabilitation. Data sources included Medline/PubMed, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Scopus, and manual searches. Two reviewers independently screened and selected studies, with discrepancies resolved by a third reviewer. Data extraction captured variables such as publication year, patient demographics, number of implants, follow-up duration, flap survival, implant failure, and aesthetic outcomes. The risk of bias was assessed using the JBI appraisal tool, and the certainty of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach. Results: A total of 17 clinical studies were included, evaluating 245 patients and 402 dental implants. The average patient age was 43.7 years, with a mean follow-up period of 34.3 months. Flap survival was high, with a 98.3% success rate and only four flap losses. The implant failure rate was low at 1.74%. Esthetic outcomes were varied, with only three studies using standardized protocols for evaluation. The overall certainty of evidence for flap survival was moderate, low for implant failure, and very low for aesthetics due to the subjective nature of assessments and variability in reporting. Conclusions: The primary limitations of the evidence included in this review are the observational design of the studies, leading to an inherent risk of bias, inconsistency in reporting methods, and imprecision in outcome measures. Additionally, the subjective nature of aesthetic evaluations and the variability in assessment tools further limit the reliability of the findings. The DBFF technique demonstrates excellent outcomes for mandibular reconstruction, with high flap survival and low implant failure rates, making it a viable option for dental rehabilitation. However, the evidence for aesthetic outcomes is less certain, highlighting the need for more rigorous and standardized research. This review supports the DBFF as a good alternative for mandibular reconstruction with successful dental implant integration, although further studies are needed to enhance the reliability of aesthetic evaluations.
