ArticleCraniomaxillofacial trauma & reconstruction2020
Segmental Mandibular Reconstruction Using Tissue Engineering Strategies: A Systematic Review of Individual Patient Data.
Article in Craniomaxillofacial trauma & reconstruction, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of non-transport disc and conventional distraction osteogenesis for mandibular segmental defect reconstruction.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2026Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of the systematic review was to analyze the current clinical evidence concerning the use of tissue engineering as a treatment strategy for reconstruction of segmental defects of the mandible and their clinical outcomes using individual patient data.
methodsA systematic review of the literature was conducted using PubMed and Cochrane Library on May 21, 2019. The eligibility criteria included patients in whom segmental mandibular reconstruction was carried out using tissue engineering as the primary treatment strategy. After screening and checking for eligibility, individual patient data were extracted to the extent it was available. Data extraction included the type of tissue engineering strategy, demographics, and indication for treatment, and outcomes included clinical and radiographic outcome measures, vitality of engineered bone, dental rehabilitation, and patient-reported outcome measures and complications.
resultsOut of a total of 408 articles identified, 44 articles reporting on 285 patients were included, of which 179 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The different tissue engineering treatment strategies could be broadly classified into 5 groups: "prefabrication," "cell culture," "bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) without autografts," "BMP with autografts," and "scaffolds containing autografts." Most included studies were case reports or case series. A wide variety of components were used as scaffolds, cells, and biological substances. There was not a single outcome measure that was both objective and consistently reported, although most studies reported successful outcome. DISCUSSION: A wide variety of tissue engineering strategies were used for segmental mandibular reconstruction that could be classified into 5 groups. Due to the low number of treated patients, lack of standardized and consistent reporting outcomes, lack of comparative studies, and low evidence of reported literature, there is insufficient evidence to recommend any particular tissue engineering strategy.
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.