ArticleClinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology2022
The usefulness of patient-specific 3D nasal silicone implant using 3D design and order form.
Article in Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Contact Area Between 3D-Printed Silicone Implant and Nasal Bone as a Predictive Factor for Implant Deviation.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2025Article
- Paradigm Shift in Rhinoplasty with Virtual 3D Surgery Software and 3D Printing Technology.Archives of plastic surgery · 2024Article
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
purposeThe need for customized implants has continuously increased, but patient-specific silicone implants are not yet commonly used in the plastic surgery market. We sought to validate the effectiveness of a 3D customized nasal implant design in terms of design and lead time compared with a manually customized implant by a surgeon. MATERIALS AND
methodsBased on the computed tomography (CT) findings of 15 patients who planned rhinoplasty, a surgeon wrote order forms reflecting the surgical plan and subsequently designed implants manually using epoxy on a 3D printed skull. Separately, engineers analyzed the CT findings and designed 3D implants based on the order forms.
resultsEpoxy designs were 3D-scanned, converted into a stereolithography format and compared with 3D implant designs to assess which method had a smaller margin of error as per the preoperative order form. Moreover, the lead time in all steps are compared. Nasion thickness, tip thickness, glabella starting point, glabella width, radix width, and total volume were comparatively analyzed. In all parameters, the error rate of the 3D design is relatively lower than that of the epoxy design. The former also had a lower total volume and a faster manufacturing time.
conclusionWith novel 3D customized nasal implants, the limitations of ready-made silicone implants are addressed, and it is now possible to preoperatively design implants more accurately, quickly, and conveniently.
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.