ArticleFrontiers in oncology2021
Individualized 3D-Printed Tissue Retraction Devices for Head and Neck Radiotherapy.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Small device, big impact: how a simple chairside 3D-printed retractor reshapes dose and patient experience in head and neck radiotherapy.Translational cancer research · 2026Article
- Worldwide research on 3D printing for cancer: a dual-method analysis of bibliometrics and stratified focused thematic.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2026Review
- Autostent: a semi-automated approach to designing customized 3D-printed oral radiation stents for patients with head and neck cancer.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2025Observational
- Materials and effects of intraoral device technologies for complication protection in head and neck cancer radiotherapy: a scoping review.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Intraoral stent for head and neck radiotherapy using 3D technology: an integrative review.Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology · 2025Review
- Virtual Tumor Mapping: A New Standard for Surgeon-Pathologist Collaboration in Treating Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma.Cancers · 2024Article
- A quick guide on implementing and quality assuring 3D printing in radiation oncology.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2023Review
- Dosimetric impact of hollow intraoral stents for head and neck cancer radiotherapy: A phantom study.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2023Article
- Dual-energy CT-based stopping power prediction for dental materials in particle therapy.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2023Article
- Oral Sequelae after Head and Neck Radiotherapy: RCT Comparing 3D-Printed Tissue Retraction Devices with Conventional Dental Splints.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRadiotherapy for head and neck cancer may cause various oral sequelae, such as radiation-induced mucositis. To protect healthy tissue from irradiation, intraoral devices can be used. Current tissue retraction devices (TRDs) have to be either individually manufactured at considerable cost and time expenditure or they are limited in their variability. In this context, a 3D-printed, tooth-borne TRD might further facilitate clinical use.
methodsA novel approach for the manufacturing of TRDs is described and its clinical application is analysed retrospectively. The devices were virtually designed for fabrication by 3D-printing technology, enabling-in only a single printing design-caudal or bi-lateral tongue displacement, as well as stabilization of a tongue-out position. For a total of 10 patients undergoing radiotherapy of head and neck tumors, the devices were individually adapted after pre-fabrication. Technical and clinical feasibility was assessed along with patient adherence. Tissue spacing was calculated by volumetric analysis of tongue retraction. In one exemplary case, radiotherapy treatment plans before and after tissue displacement were generated and compared. The reproducibility of maxillomandibular relation at device re-positioning was quantified by repeated intraoral optical scanning in a voluntary participant.
results3D-printing was useful for the simplification of TRD manufacture, resulting in a total patient treatment time of less than 30 min. The devices were tolerated well by all tested patients over the entire radiation treatment period. No technical complications occurred with the devices. The TRDs caused an effective spacing of the healthy adjacent tissue, e.g., the tongue. Position changes of maxillomandibular relation were limited to a mean value of 98.1 µm ± 29.4 µm root mean square deviation between initial reference and follow-up positions.
conclusionsThe presented method allows a resource-efficient fabrication of individualized, tooth-bourne TRDs. A high reproducibility of maxillomandibular relation was found and the first clinical experiences underline the high potential of such devices for radiotherapy in the head and neck area.
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.