ArticleJournal of anatomy2021
Thickness accuracy of virtually designed patient-specific implants for large neurocranial defects.
Article in Journal of anatomy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Uncertainty estimation and probabilistic skull shape reconstruction using bayesian neural networks.Scientific reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The combination of computer-aided design (CAD) techniques based on computed tomography (CT) data to generate patient-specific implants is in use for decades. However, persisting disadvantages are complicated design procedures and rigid reconstruction protocols, for example, for tailored implants mimicking the patient-specific thickness distribution of missing cranial bone. In this study we used two different approaches, CAD- versus thin-plate spline (TPS)-based implants, to reconstruct extensive unilateral and bilateral cranial defects in three clinical cases. We used CT data of three complete human crania that were virtually damaged according to the missing regions in the clinical cases. In total, we carried out 132 virtual reconstructions and quantified accuracy from the original to the generated implant and deviations in the resulting implant thickness as root-mean-square error (RMSE). Reconstructions using TPS showed an RMSE of 0.08-0.18 mm in relation to geometric accuracy. CAD-based implants showed an RMSE of 0.50-1.25 mm. RMSE in relation to implant thickness was between 0.63 and 0.70 mm (TPS) while values for CAD-based implants were significantly higher (0.63-1.67 mm). While both approaches provide implants showing a high accuracy, the TPS-based approach additionally provides implants that accurately reproduce the patient-specific thickness distribution of the affected cranial region.
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.