ReviewPolymers2021
State-of-Art of Standard and Innovative Materials Used in Cranioplasty.
Review in Polymers, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Meta-analyses of the surgical outcomes using personalized 3D-printed titanium and PEEK vs. standard implants in cranial reconstruction in patients undergoing craniectomy.Neurosurgical review · 2025Pooled it
- Article
- Syndrome of the trephined: from pathophysiology to cranioplasty - an updated narrative review.Brain & spine · 2026Review
- Comparative Study of Computer-Aided Designed PEEK Implants Versus Autologous Bone Flap in Cranioplasty: Clinical Efficacy and Medical Economics Analysis.The Journal of craniofacial surgery · 2025Article
- Developing Bioengineered 3D-Printed Composite Scaffolds with Antimicrobial Potential for Bone Tissue Regeneration.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2025Article
- Volumetric changes in the bone flap at one year follow up in patients undergoing craniotomy.Neurosurgical review · 2025Article
- Current State of Knowledge Regarding the Treatment of Cranial Bone Defects: An Overview.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Finite element investigation for improving chest wall reconstruction process using ceramic and polymeric implants.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- The current state of cranioplasty in Europe - Results from a European cranioplasty survey.Brain & spine · 2025Article
- Patient-specific titanium-reinforced calcium-phosphate (CaP: Ti) implants for revision cranioplasty.Brain & spine · 2025Article
- Review
- Early osteointegration in "one-step" resection and reconstruction using porous hydroxyapatite custom implants for skull-infiltrating tumors: a monocentric prospective series.Acta neurochirurgica · 2024Article
- Three-dimensional personalized porous polyethylen cranioplasty in patients at increased risk of surgical site infection.Acta neurochirurgica · 2024Article
- Assessment of cranial reconstruction utilizing various implant materials: finite element study.Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine · 2024Article
- Article
- Functionalized Cortical Bone-Inspired Composites Adapt to the Mechanical and Biological Properties of the Edentulous Area to Resist Fretting Wear.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2023Article
- [Synthetic bone replacement substances].Orthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2022Article
- State-of-the-art techniques for imaging the vascular microenvironment in craniofacial bone tissue engineering applications.American journal of physiology. Cell physiology · 2022Review
- Clinical Applications of Poly-Methyl-Methacrylate in Neurosurgery: The In Vivo Cranial Bone Reconstruction.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2022Article
- A Narrative Review of Cell-Based Approaches for Cranial Bone Regeneration.Pharmaceutics · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cranioplasty is the surgical technology employed to repair a traumatic head injury, cerebrovascular disease, oncology resection and congenital anomalies. Actually, different bone substitutes are used, either derived from biological products such as hydroxyapatite and demineralized bone matrix or synthetic ones such as sulfate or phosphate ceramics and polymer-based substitutes. Considering that the choice of the best material for cranioplasty is controversial, linked to the best operation procedure, the intent of this review was to report the outcome of research conducted on materials used for such applications, comparing the most used materials. The most interesting challenge is to preserve the mechanical properties while improving the bioactivity, porosity, biocompatibility, antibacterial properties, lowering thickness and costs. Among polymer materials, polymethylmethacrylate and polyetheretherketone are the most motivating, due to their biocompatibility, rigidity and toughness. Other biomaterials, with ecofriendly attributes, such as polycaprolactone and polylactic acid have been investigated, due to their microstructure that mimic the trabecular bone, encouraging vascularization and cell-cell communications. Taking into consideration that each material must be selected for specific clinical use, the main limitation remains the defects and the lack of vascularization, consequently porous synthetic substitutes could be an interesting way to support a faster and wider vascularization, with the aim to improve patient prognosis.
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.