Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33916853›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of environmental research and public health2021

Systematic Review of Clinical Applications of CAD/CAM Technology for Craniofacial Implants Placement and Manufacturing of Nasal Prostheses.

Waqas Tanveer, Angela Ridwan-Pramana, Pedro Molinero-Mourelle, Jan Harm Koolstra, Tymour Forouzanfar

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Comparing digital and traditional guides in first molar implant surgery: A randomized clinical trial.Technology and health care : official journal of the European Society for Engineering and Medicine · 2022
    Trial
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Waqas TanveerDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, 1081 HZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Angela Ridwan-PramanaCenter for Special Care in Dentistry, Department of Maxillofacial Prosthodontics, Stichting Bijzondere Tandheelkunde, 1081 LA Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Pedro Molinero-MourelleDepartment of Reconstructive Dentistry and Gerodontology, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, CHE 3012 Bern, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0001-5493-0295
Jan Harm KoolstraDepartment of Oral Cell Biology and Functional Anatomy, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), University of Amsterdam and VU University, 1081 LA Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-1202-2296
Tymour ForouzanfarDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery/Oral Pathology and 3D Innovation Lab, Amsterdam UMC, 1081 HZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of this systematic review was to gather the clinical and laboratory applications of CAD/CAM technology for preoperative planning, designing of an attachment system, and manufacturing of nasal prostheses. According to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, an electronic search was carried out. Only human clinical studies involving digital planning for the rehabilitation of facial defects were included. A total of 21 studies were included with 23 patients, which were virtually planned through different planning software. The most common preoperative data for digital planning were CT scans in nine cases, CBCT in six cases, and laser scans in six cases. The reported planning softwares were Mimics in six cases, Geomagic Studio software in six cases, ZBrush in four cases, and Freeform plus software in four cases. Ten surgical templates were designed and printed to place 36 implants after digital planning, while post-operative assessment was done in two cases to check the accuracy of planned implants. Digital 3D planning software was reported for presurgical planning and craniofacial implants placement, fabrication of molds, designing of implants, designing of retentive attachments, and printing of silicone prostheses. Digital technology has been claimed to reduce the clinical and laboratory time; however, the equipment cost is still one of the limitations.

Indexed as

Computer-Aided DesignProstheses and ImplantsFaceHumansSoftwareTechnologycraniofacial implantsdigital planningdigital workflowguided implants surgerynasal prosthesis

Identifiers

PMID33916853
PMCPMC8038514

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.