Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
5.2
2.9
Journals
JCM
Special Issues
Recent Advances in Reconstructive Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
jcm-logo
Submit to Special Issue Submit Abstract to Special Issue Review for JCM Propose a Special Issue

Journal Menu

► Journal Menu

Journal Browser

► Journal Browser
share announcement

Recent Advances in Reconstructive Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

A special issue of Journal of Clinical Medicine (ISSN 2077-0383). This special issue belongs to the section "General Surgery".

Deadline for manuscript submissions: 25 August 2025 | Viewed by 800

Special Issue Editor

Dr. Luciano Maria Catalfamo

E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
Department of Biomedical and Dental Sciences and Morphofunctional Imaging, University of Messina, 98122 Messina, Italy
Interests: oral surgery; maxillofacial surgery; free flap; reconstructive surgery

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

Reconstruction within the head and neck is challenging. Defects can be anatomically complex and may already be compromised by scarring, inflammation, and infection. Tissue grafts and vascularised flaps (either pedicled or free) bring healthy tissue to a compromised wound for optimal healing and are the current gold standard for the repair of such defects. However, several disadvantages limit the availability of these procedures, for example, the difficulty in shaping the flap to fit the defect and, most importantly, donor site morbidity. In addition, the importance of aesthetics, besides function, has driven advances in the accuracy of surgical techniques.

Developments in navigation, three-dimensional imaging, stereolithographic models, and the use of custom-made implants can aid and improve the accuracy of existing reconstructive methods.

Furthermore, recent developments of artificial intelligence in clinical diagnosis, as well as in surgical planning, are certainly bringing considerable advances in oral and maxillofacial surgery.

The aim of this Special Issue is to discuss current advances in reconstruction within oral and maxillofacial surgery, and we are pleased to invite you to submit your valuable contributions for the scientific progress of this project.

Dr. Luciano Maria Catalfamo
Guest Editor

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a single-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Journal of Clinical Medicine is an international peer-reviewed open access semimonthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 2600 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

  • oral surgery
  • maxillofacial surgery
  • new technologies
  • free flap
  • reconstructive surgery
  • artificial intelligence

Benefits of Publishing in a Special Issue

  • Ease of navigation: Grouping papers by topic helps scholars navigate broad scope journals more efficiently.
  • Greater discoverability: Special Issues support the reach and impact of scientific research. Articles in Special Issues are more discoverable and cited more frequently.
  • Expansion of research network: Special Issues facilitate connections among authors, fostering scientific collaborations.
  • External promotion: Articles in Special Issues are often promoted through the journal's social media, increasing their visibility.
  • Reprint: MDPI Books provides the opportunity to republish successful Special Issues in book format, both online and in print.

Further information on MDPI's Special Issue policies can be found here.

Published Papers (2 papers)

Download All Papers
Order results
Result details
Show export options expand_more Show export options expand_less
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

17 pages, 2000 KiB  
Article
Can 3D Exoscopy-Assisted Surgery Replace the Traditional Endoscopy in Septoplasty? Analysis of Our Two-Year Experience
by Luciano Catalfamo, Alessandro Calvo, Samuele Cicchiello, Antonino La Fauci, Francesco Saverio De Ponte, Calogero Scozzaro and Danilo De Rinaldis
J. Clin. Med. 2025, 14(15), 5279; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14155279 - 25 Jul 2025
Viewed by 180
Abstract
Background/Objectives: Septoplasty is a commonly performed surgical procedure aimed at correcting nasal septal deviations, to improve nasal airflow and respiratory function. Traditional approaches to septal correction rely on either direct visualization or endoscopic guidance. Recently, a novel technology known as exoscopy has [...] Read more.
Background/Objectives: Septoplasty is a commonly performed surgical procedure aimed at correcting nasal septal deviations, to improve nasal airflow and respiratory function. Traditional approaches to septal correction rely on either direct visualization or endoscopic guidance. Recently, a novel technology known as exoscopy has been introduced into surgical practice. Exoscopy is an “advanced magnification system” that provides an enlarged, three-dimensional view of the operating field. In this article, we present our experience with exoscope-assisted septoplasty, developed over the last two years, and compare it with our extensive experience using the endoscopic approach. Methods: Our case series includes 26 patients, predominantly males and young adults, who underwent exoscope-assisted septoplasty. We discuss the primary advantages of this technique and, most importantly, provide an analysis of its learning curve. The cohort of patients treated using the exoscopic approach was compared with a control group of 26 patients who underwent endoscope-guided septoplasty, randomly selected from our broader clinical database. Finally, we present a representative surgical case that details all phases of the exoscope-assisted procedure. Results: Our surgical experience has demonstrated that exoscopy is a safe and effective tool for performing septoplasty. Moreover, the learning curve associated with this technique exhibits a rapid and progressive improvement. Notably, exoscopy provides a substantial educational benefit for trainees and medical students, as it enables them to share the same visual perspective as the lead surgeon. Conclusions: Although further studies are required to validate this approach, we believe that exoscopy represents a promising advancement for a wide range of head and neck procedures, and certainly for septoplasty. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Recent Advances in Reconstructive Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

21 pages, 7907 KiB  
Article
Larger Vertical Ridge Augmentation: A Retrospective Multicenter Comparative Analysis of Seven Surgical Techniques
by Andreas Pabst, Abdulmonem Alshihri, Philipp Becker, Amely Hartmann, Diana Heimes, Eleni Kapogianni, Frank Kloss, Keyvan Sagheb, Markus Troeltzsch, Jochen Tunkel, Christian Walter and Peer W. Kämmerer
J. Clin. Med. 2025, 14(12), 4284; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14124284 - 16 Jun 2025
Viewed by 437
Abstract
Background: Vertical alveolar ridge augmentation (ARA) > 3 mm is associated with increased surgical complexity and higher complication rates. Despite the availability of various ARA techniques and graft materials, robust comparative clinical data remain limited. This retrospective multicenter study aimed to evaluate and [...] Read more.
Background: Vertical alveolar ridge augmentation (ARA) > 3 mm is associated with increased surgical complexity and higher complication rates. Despite the availability of various ARA techniques and graft materials, robust comparative clinical data remain limited. This retrospective multicenter study aimed to evaluate and compare surgical and patient-relevant outcomes across seven established vertical ARA techniques. Methods: This retrospective multicenter study included 70 cases of vertical ARA > 3 mm using seven different techniques (10 cases each): an iliac crest graft (ICG), intraoral autogenous bone block (IBB), allogeneic bone block (ABB), CAD/CAM ABB, CAD/CAM titanium mesh (CAD/CAM TM), magnesium scaffold (MS), and the allogeneic shell technique (ST). The outcome parameters included harvesting and insertion time, bone gain (vertical and horizontal, after a minimum of one year), graft resorption (after one year), donor site morbidity, dehiscence rate, need for material removal, and biological and general financial costs. Results: Harvesting time significantly varied among the different ARA techniques (p = 0.0025), with the longest mean durations in ICGs (51.6 ± 5.8 min) and IBBs (36.5 ± 10.8 min), and no harvesting was required for the other techniques. Insertion times also significantly differed between the different ARA techniques (p < 0.0001) and were longest in IBBs (50.1 ± 7.5 min) and the ST (47.3 ± 13.9 min). ICGs achieved the highest vertical and horizontal bone gain (5.6 ± 0.4 mm), while ABBs and CAD/CAM ABBs showed the lowest (~3.0 mm). Resorption rates significantly differed between the different ARA techniques (p < 0.0001) and were highest for ICGs (25.9 ± 3.9%) and lowest for MSs (5.1 ± 1.5%). Donor site morbidity was 100% in ICGs and 50% in IBBs, with no morbidity in the other groups. Dehiscence rates were 10% in most techniques but 30% in CAD/CAM TMs. Removals were required in all techniques except MSs. Biological and financial costs were high for ICGs and CAD/CAM ABBs and low for MSs. Conclusions: Vertical ARA techniques significantly differ regarding harvesting and insertion time, bone gain, graft resorption, donor site morbidity, dehiscence rates, removals, and costs. While ICGs achieved the highest bone volume, less invasive techniques, such as CAD/CAM-based or resorbable scaffolds, reduced biological costs and complication risks. Technique selection should be individualized based on defects, patients, and reconstructive goals. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Recent Advances in Reconstructive Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

Show export options expand_more Show export options expand_less
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
 
Displaying articles 1-2
Back to TopTop