Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

, Volume 22, Issue 2, pp 151–156 | Cite as

Tactile recovery assessment with shortened Semmes-Weinstein monofilaments in patients with buccinator myomucosal flap oral cavity reconstructions

  • Luigi Angelo Vaira
  • Olindo Massarelli
  • Roberta Gobbi
  • Andrea Biglio
  • Giacomo De Riu
Original Article



The sensitive restoration is a primary aim of oral reconstructive surgery. The Semmes-Weinstein monofilament test is the “Gold Standard” to assess the threshold of tactile sensitivity on the skin but its use in the oral cavity is limited due to the size of the tools. We adopted half-cut Semmes-Weinstein monofilaments to evaluate the threshold of tactile sensitivity in oral reconstructions with buccinator myomucosal flaps.

Materials and methods

Monofilaments were half-cut and recalibrated. Fifty-seven oral reconstructions were considered at 4-year minimum follow-up. Test was conducted both on the reconstructive flap and on the non-operated contralateral side.


All of the considered flaps (100%) showed a recovery of tactile sensitivity. The overall average tactile threshold value assessed on this sample was 0.76 ± 1.58 g/mm2 overall.


Shortened monofilaments allow easily assessment of tactile sensitivity in all the oral cavity areas, even in operated patients which often present lockjaw or microstomia.


Semmes-Weinstein monofilaments Tactile threshold Oral cavity reconstruction Buccinator myomucosal flap Cheek myomucosal flap 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. 1.
    Urken ML (1995) The restoration or preservation of sensation in the oral cavity following ablative surgery. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 121(6):607–612. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Massarelli O, Vaira LA, Biglio A, Gobbi R, Dell’Aversana Orabona G, De Riu G (2017) Sensory recovery of myomucosal flap oral cavity reconstructions. Head Neck.
  3. 3.
    Hirano K, Hirano S, Hayakawa I (2004) The role of oral sensorimotor function in masticatory ability. J Oral Rehab 31(3):199–205. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Urken ML, Walnberg H, Vickary C, Biller HF (1990) The neurofasciocutaneous radial forearm flap in head and neck reconstruction: a preliminary report. Laryngoscope 100:161-173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Weinstein S, Semmes J, Ghent L, Teuber H (1958) Roughness discrimination after penetrating brain injury in man. J Comp Physiol Psychol 51(3):269–275. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Vaira LA, Massarelli O, Meloni SM, Dell’aversana Orabona G, Piombino P, De Riu G (2017) Alveolar nerve impairment following bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy and genioplasty. J Oral Maxillofac Surge Med Pathol 29(3):203–209. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Salzano FA, Guastini L, Mora R, Dellepiane M, Salzano G, Santomauro V, Salemi A (2010) Nasal tactile sensitivity in elderly. Acta Otolaryngol 130:1389–1393CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Komiyama O, Graceley RH, Kawara M, De Laat A (2008) Intraoral measurement of tactile and filament-prick pain threshold using shortened Semmes-Weinstein monofilament. Clin J Pain 24(1):16–21. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Massarelli O, Baj A, Gobbi R, Soma D, Marelli S, De Riu G, Tullio A, Giannì B (2013) Cheek mucosa: a versatile donor site of myomucosal flaps. Technical and functional considerations. Head Neck. 35(1):109–117. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Massarelli O, Gobbi R, Soma D, Tullio A (2013) The folded tunnelized-facial artery myomucosal island flap: a new technique for total soft palate reconstruction. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 71(1):192–198. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Massarelli O, Vaira LA, Biglio A, Gobbi R, Piombino P, De Riu G (2017) Rational and simplified nomenclature for buccinators myomucosal flaps. Oral Maxillofac Surg 21(4):453–459. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Vaira LA, Massarelli O, Gobbi R, Soma D, Dell'aversana Orabona G, Piombino P, De Riu G (2017) Evaluation of discrimative sensibility recovery in patients with buccinator myomucosal flap oral cavity reconstructions. Eur J Plast Surg 40(5):427–434. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Massarelli O, Vaira LA, De Riu G (2017) Islanded facial artery musculomucosal flap for tongue reconstruction. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 46:1061–1061CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Massarelli O, Vaira LA, Gobbi R, Biglio A, Dell’aversana Orabona G, De Riu G (2017) Soft palate functional reconstruction with buccinator myomucosal island flaps. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg.
  15. 15.
    Massarelli O, Vaira LA, Gobbi R, Dell’aversana Orabona G, De Riu G (2017) Recontruction of full-thickness cheek defect with chimeric facial artery free flap: a case report. Microsurgery.
  16. 16.
    Wolber A, Mallet Y, Avalos N, Martinot-Duquennoy V, Lefebvre J-L (2009) Étude de la sensibilité du lambeau de FAMM: à propos de 15 cas. Ann Chir Plast Esthét 54(2):120–125. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shindo ML, Sinhua UK, Rice DH (1995) Sensory recovery in noninnervated free flaps for head and neck reconstruction. Laryngoscope 105(12):1290–1293. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Vriens JM, Acosta TMD, Sutar DS, Webster MHC (1996) Recovery in sensation in the radial forearm free flap in oral reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 98(4):649–656. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lvoff G, O'Brien C, Cope C, Lee K (1998) Sensory recovery of noninnervated radial forearm free flaps in oral and oropharyngeal reconstruction. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 124(11):1206–1208. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kimata Y, Uchiyama K, Ebihara S, Kishimoto S, Asai M, Saikawa M, Ohyama W, Haneda T, Hayashi R, Onitsuka T, Nakatsuka T, Harii K (1999) Comparison of innervated and noninnervated flaps in oral reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 104(5):1307–1313. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kuriakose MA, Loree TR, Spies A, Meyers S, Hicks WL Jr (2001) Sensate radial forearm free flaps in tongue reconstruction. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 127(12):1463–1476. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Biglioli F, Liviero F, Frigerio A, Rezzonico A, Brusati R (2006) Function of the sensate free forearm flap after partial glossectomy. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 34:332–339CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shibahara T, Mohammed AF, Katakura A, Nomura T (2006) Long-term results of free radial forearm flap used for oral reconstruction: functional and histological evaluation. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 64(8):1255–1260. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Avery CME, Iqbal M, Hayter JP (2006) Recovery of sensation in the skin of non-innervatedradial flaps after subfascial and suprafascial dissection. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 44:213–216CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Loewen IJ, Boliek CA, Harris J, Seikaly H, Rieger JM (2010) Oral sensation and function: a comparison of patients with innervated radial forearm free flap reconstruction to healthy matched controls. Head Neck 32(1):85–95. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Maxillofacial Surgery Operative UnitUniversity of SassariSassariItaly

Personalised recommendations