ReviewNeurosurgery2015
The Recent Revolution in the Design and Manufacture of Cranial Implants: Modern Advancements and Future Directions.
Review in Neurosurgery, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
39 citing papers in PubMed, 120 citations in OpenAlex.
- Multi-Stage micro-CT-based dimensional accuracy assessment of a voronoi-based patient-specific cranial implant fabricated by electron beam melting.Frontiers in medical technology · 2026Article
- Coverage of necrosis after secondary cranioplasty using a latissimus dorsi muscle flap.Journal of surgical case reports · 2026Article
- 3-Dimensional printing and bioprinting in neurological sciences: applications in surgery, imaging, tissue engineering, and pharmacology and therapeutics.Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine · 2025Review
- Clinical application of 3D slicer reconstruction and 3D printing localization combined with neuroendoscopy technology in VPS surgery.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Optimization of PETG 3D printing parameters for the design and development of biocompatible bone implants.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Article
- Cranial reconstruction utilizing polymeric implants in two different designs: finite element investigation.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2024Article
- Radiopacity Enhancements in Polymeric Implant Biomaterials: A Comprehensive Literature Review.ACS biomaterials science & engineering · 2024Review
- Cranial Defect Repair With 3D Designed Models.Biomedical engineering and computational biology · 2024Article
- Personalized 3D-printed cranial implants for complex cranioplasty using open-source software.Surgical neurology international · 2024Article
- Article
- Staged Intracranial Free Tissue Transfer and Cranioplasty for a Refractory Nasal-cranial Base Fistula.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2023Article
- Optimization of Fixations for Additively Manufactured Cranial Implants: Insights from Finite Element Analysis.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Clinical application of 3D-Slicer + 3D printing guide combined with transcranial neuroendoscopic in minimally invasive neurosurgery.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- 3D Printing of MgAl3D printing and additive manufacturing · 2022Article
- 3d cranial reconstruction using titanium implant - a case report.African health sciences · 2022Article
- Review
- Evaluation of the Fitting Accuracy of CAD/CAM-Manufactured Patient-Specific Implants for the Reconstruction of Cranial Defects-A Retrospective Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Adaptive Mechanism for Designing a Personalized Cranial Implant and Its 3D Printing Using PEEK.Polymers · 2022Article
- Biocompatible Materials for Orbital Wall Reconstruction-An Overview.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Subgaleal Effusion and Brain Midline Shift After Cranioplasty: A Retrospective Study Between Polyetheretherketone Cranioplasty and Titanium Cranioplasty After Decompressive Craniectomy.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Large format (i.e., >25 cm) cranioplasty is a challenging procedure not only from a cosmesis standpoint, but also in terms of ensuring that the patient's brain will be well-protected from direct trauma. Until recently, when a patient's own cranial flap was unavailable, these goals were unattainable. Recent advances in implant computer-aided design and 3-dimensional (3-D) printing are leveraging other advances in regenerative medicine. It is now possible to 3-D-print patient-specific implants from a variety of polymer, ceramic, or metal components. A skull template may be used to design the external shape of an implant that will become well integrated in the skull, while also providing beneficial distribution of mechanical force in the event of trauma. Furthermore, an internal pore geometry can be utilized to facilitate the seeding of banked allograft cells. Implants may be cultured in a bioreactor along with recombinant growth factors to produce implants coated with bone progenitor cells and extracellular matrix that appear to the body as a graft, albeit a tissue-engineered graft. The growth factors would be left behind in the bioreactor and the graft would resorb as new host bone invades the space and is remodeled into strong bone. As we describe in this review, such advancements will lead to optimal replacement of cranial defects that are both patient-specific and regenerative.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.