Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 23, 2026
A Postoperative Evaluation Guideline for Computer-Assisted Reconstruction of the Mandible
Published on: January 28, 2020
Classification of maxillectomy defects: a systematic review and criteria necessary for a universal description
Avinash S Bidra1, Rhonda F Jacob, Thomas D Taylor
1Department of Reconstructive Sciences, University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, CT, USA.
Statement Of Problem:
Maxillectomy defects are complex and involve a number of anatomic structures. Several maxillectomy defect classifications have been proposed with no universal acceptance among surgeons and prosthodontists. Established criteria for describing the maxillectomy defect are lacking.
Purpose:
This systematic review aimed to evaluate classification systems in the available literature, to provide a critical appraisal, and to identify the criteria necessary for a universal description of maxillectomy and midfacial defects.
Material And Methods:
An electronic search of the English language literature between the periods of 1974 and June 2011 was performed by using PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases with predetermined inclusion criteria. Key terms included in the search were maxillectomy classification, maxillary resection classification, maxillary removal classification, maxillary reconstruction classification, midfacial defect classification, and midfacial reconstruction classification. This was supplemented by a manual search of selected journals. After application of predetermined exclusion criteria, the final list of articles was reviewed in-depth to provide a critical appraisal and identify criteria for a universal description of a maxillectomy defect.
Results:
The electronic database search yielded 261 titles. Systematic application of inclusion and exclusion criteria resulted in identification of 14 maxillectomy and midfacial defect classification systems. From these articles, 6 different criteria were identified as necessary for a universal description of a maxillectomy defect. Multiple deficiencies were noted in each classification system. Though most articles described the superior-inferior extent of the defect, only a small number of articles described the anterior-posterior and medial-lateral extent of the defect. Few articles listed dental status and soft palate involvement when describing maxillectomy defects.
Conclusions:
No classification system has accurately described the maxillectomy defect, based on criteria that satisfy both surgical and prosthodontic needs. The 6 criteria identified in this systematic review for a universal description of a maxillectomy defect are: 1) dental status; 2) oroantral/nasal communication status; 3) soft palate and other contiguous structure involvement; 4) superior-inferior extent; 5) anterior-posterior extent; and 6) medial-lateral extent of the defect. A criteria-based description appears more objective and amenable for universal use than a classification-based description.