2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.bjps.2015.07.019
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Functional lower lip reconstruction with the modified Bernard–Webster flap

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
5

Citation Types

2
10
0
1

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 28 publications
2
10
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Similar results concerning neurosensory preservation were shown and discussed in the literature by other authors adopting similar techniques (modified Bernard-Webster technique) [ 20 ]. Their results are quite unsatisfactory for aesthetic and function because of lack in vermillion reconstruction and microstomia resulting from the use of tissue from the unaffected upper lip, unlike the cases reconstructed with our technique.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 83%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Similar results concerning neurosensory preservation were shown and discussed in the literature by other authors adopting similar techniques (modified Bernard-Webster technique) [ 20 ]. Their results are quite unsatisfactory for aesthetic and function because of lack in vermillion reconstruction and microstomia resulting from the use of tissue from the unaffected upper lip, unlike the cases reconstructed with our technique.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 83%
“…Aesthetic and functional results were considered for symmetry, shape, similarity in tissue texture, annexes, mouth opening, ability to chew and wear a prosthesis when necessary, and even for some neurosensory preservation or recovery, as shown in Table 1. Other authors using similar techniques (without similar aesthetic and functional results) reported neurosensory preservation or recovery after reconstruction, confirming the technique's rationale [20].…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 62%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…4 Ideally local flaps should be chosen as they can offer dynamic functional reconstruction and good color match, the Karapandzic and the Webster-Bernard flaps have been the most adopted reconstructive local options for large lower lip defects up to 80%. [9][10][11] However local flaps are not always possible, and have major drawbacks such as microstomia, abolition of givobuccal sulcus, drooling, and additional facial scars. 2,[8][9][10] When local flaps are not viable option, free flap reconstruction are considered; static options described include FRFF with a palmaris longus sling, free ALT flap, whereas dynamic options include functional free gracilis muscle flap, free serratus anterior muscle flap have been described in literature.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[9][10][11] However local flaps are not always possible, and have major drawbacks such as microstomia, abolition of givobuccal sulcus, drooling, and additional facial scars. 2,[8][9][10] When local flaps are not viable option, free flap reconstruction are considered; static options described include FRFF with a palmaris longus sling, free ALT flap, whereas dynamic options include functional free gracilis muscle flap, free serratus anterior muscle flap have been described in literature. The free radial forearm is currently the "gold" standard for total lower lip defects due to its thin, pliable skin, long pedicle, ease of harvest, and includes vascularized palmaris longus sling as well as reasonable color match.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%