ReviewBiomedicines2020
Bioabsorbable Osteofixation Materials for Maxillofacial Bone Surgery: A Review on Polymers and Magnesium-Based Materials.
Review in Biomedicines, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 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
30 citing papers in PubMed.
- 4D Printing of TBCHA-Based Shape Memory Polymer Composites: Bioglass 45S5 Addition Improves Stability Retention and Shape Memory Performance.ACS omega · 2026Article
- Time-Course Evaluation of the In Vivo Resorption Process of Calcium Phosphates/Poly(lactide-International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- From Autologous Bone Tissue to Bioengineered Material Solutions in Post-Traumatic Orbital Wall Reconstruction: An Overview.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2025Review
- Evaluation of Radiographic and Clinical Outcomes in the Use of Bone Substitutes in Periapical Surgery and Periodontal Regeneration.Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences · 2025Article
- Bioabsorbable Magnesium-Based Materials Potential and Safety in Bone Surgery: A Systematic Review.Craniomaxillofacial trauma & reconstruction · 2025Review
- Biomechanical and histomorphometric evaluation of biodegradable mini-implants for orthodontic anchorage in the mandible of beagle dogs.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Polycaprolactone for Hard Tissue Regeneration: Scaffold Design and In Vivo Implications.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Analytical methods in studying cell force sensing: principles, current technologies and perspectives.Regenerative biomaterials · 2025Review
- Biomechanical stability of magnesium plate and screw fixation systems in LeFort I osteotomy: a three-dimensional finite element analysis.Maxillofacial plastic and reconstructive surgery · 2024Article
- Two versus three magnesium screws for osteosynthesis of mandibular condylar head fractures: a finite element analysis.Clinical oral investigations · 2024Article
- Duplex Fluorinated and Atomic Layer Deposition-Derived ZrOMaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Cephalometric evaluation of skeletal stability and pharyngeal airway changes after mandibular setback surgery: Bioabsorbable versus titanium plate and screw fixation.Imaging science in dentistry · 2024Article
- Advances in Materials with Self-Healing Properties: A Brief Review.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Mechanical Properties and Corrosion Rate of ZnAg3 as a Novel Bioabsorbable Material for Osteosynthesis.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2024Article
- 3D Printing Applications for Craniomaxillofacial Reconstruction: A Sweeping Review.ACS biomaterials science & engineering · 2023Review
- Dispersant and Protective Roles of Amphiphilic Poly(ethylene phosphate) Block Copolymers in Polyester/Bone Mineral Composites.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- Biomaterials as Implants in the Orthopedic Field for Regenerative Medicine: Metal versus Synthetic Polymers.Polymers · 2023Review
- The Use of Lactide Polymers in Bone Tissue Regeneration in Dentistry-A Systematic Review.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2023Review
- Titanium or Biodegradable Osteosynthesis in Maxillofacial Surgery? In Vitro and In Vivo Performances.Polymers · 2022Review
- Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Clinical application of osteofixation materials is essential in performing maxillofacial surgeries requiring rigid fixation of bone such as trauma surgery, orthognathic surgery, and skeletal reconstruction. In addition to the use of titanium plates and screws, clinical applications and attempts using bioabsorbable materials for osteofixation surgery are increasing with demands to avoid secondary surgery for the removal of plates and screws. Synthetic polymeric plates and screws were developed, reaching satisfactory physical properties comparable to those made with titanium. Although these polymeric materials are actively used in clinical practice, there remain some limitations to be improved. Due to questionable physical strength and cumbersome molding procedures, interests in resorbable metal materials for osteofixation emerged. Magnesium (Mg) gained attention again in the last decade as a new metallic alternative, and numerous animal studies to evaluate the possibility of clinical application of Mg-based materials are being conducted. Thanks to these researches and studies, vascular application of Mg-based biomaterials was successful; however, further studies are required for the clinical application of Mg-based biomaterials for osteofixation, especially in the facial skeleton. The review provides an overview of bioabsorbable osteofixation materials in maxillofacial bone surgery from polymer to Mg.
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.