ArticleOral and maxillofacial surgery2022
Polyetheretherketone patient-specific implants (PPSI) for the reconstruction of two different mandibular contour deformities.
Article in Oral and maxillofacial surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic review of implant materials for facial reconstructive and aesthetic surgery.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Complications After Patient-specific Implants for Facial Contouring and Augmentation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2026Article
- Polyetheretherketone for craniomaxillofacial defects: cases report, evaluation of patients' satisfaction and a systematic literature review.Maxillofacial plastic and reconstructive surgery · 2025Article
- Patient-specific implants for intraoral and maxillofacial reconstruction: a scoping review on customization and fabrication methods.Maxillofacial plastic and reconstructive surgery · 2025Review
- Review
- Endoscopic-Assisted Forehead Augmentation with Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) Patient-Specific Implant (PSI) for Aesthetic Considerations.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2024Article
- Surface modification of PEEK implants for craniofacial reconstruction and aesthetic augmentation-fiction or reality?Frontiers in surgery · 2024Review
- Enhancing PEEK surface bioactivity: Investigating the effects of combining sulfonation with sub-millimeter laser machining.Materials today. Bio · 2023Article
- 3D Printing and Virtual Surgical Planning in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
- Customized Barrier Membrane (Titanium Alloy, Poly Ether-Ether Ketone and Unsintered Hydroxyapatite/Poly-l-Lactide) for Guided Bone Regeneration.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022Review
- Approaches to Biofunctionalize Polyetheretherketone for Antibacterial: A Review.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aims to prospect the soft and hard tissue changes after augmentation of two different local mandibular contour defects using polyetheretherketone (PEEK) patient-specific onlay implants.
methodsSix patients with disfiguring local mandibular deformities were included in this study (five males and one female) and received seven PEEK patient-specific implants (PSI), virtually designed and surgically settled to augment seven mandibular defects, three deficient chins, and four mandibular angels. The analysis of the soft and hard tissue changes utilized the superimposition of the preoperative and the 6-month postoperative sagittal and coronal CT views, after standardizing the radiographic interpretation.
resultsThe soft tissue gain for the chin was 6.8 mm ± 0.98 with a 45.8% increase versus 4.42 mm ± 0.41 with a 22.9% increase for the angle. The difference in the soft tissue gain between the two groups was statistically significant (P = 0.0001). Comparing the soft tissue gain to the planned implant thickness, the percentage of the soft tissue gain for the chin recorded 109.2% versus 65.57% for the angle. The difference between the two groups was also statistically significant (P < 0.0001).
conclusionPEEK patient-specific onlay implants represented an efficient and straightforward modality to augment local mandibular contour deformities with favorable esthetic outcomes; the total soft tissue profile gain of the chin region markedly exceeded that of the mandibular angle.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34328575What 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.