Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35799966›Full record

ReviewImaging science in dentistry2022

Clinical and radiographic features of facial cosmetic materials: A systematic review.

Noura Alsufyani, Reem Aldosary, Rasha Alrasheed, Mohammed Alsufyani

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Imaging science in dentistry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Noura AlsufyaniDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Oral Medicine and Diagnostic Sciences, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7627-5073
Reem AldosaryGeneral Dentist, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0832-5865
Rasha AlrasheedDepartment of Oral Medicine and Pathology, Dental University Hospital, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4959-7077
Mohammed AlsufyaniDepartment of Dermatology and Dermatologic Surgery, Prince Sultan Military Medical City, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2668-9331
King Saud University · SARiyadh Armed Forces Hospital · SAUniversity of Alberta · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study was to systematically screen the literature for studies reporting cosmetic material in the oral and maxillofacial complex to shed light on the types of cosmetic materials, their radiographic appearance, and possible complications. Materials and Methods: Five electronic databases were reviewed for eligible studies. The general search terms were "cosmetic," "filler," "face," and "radiograph." Demographics, material types, clinical and radiographic presentation, and complications were recorded. Results: Thirty-one studies with 53 cases met the inclusion criteria. The mean age was 52.6±15.4 years with a 4 : 3 female-to-male ratio. The most common material was calcium hydroxyapatite (CaHa) (n=14, 26.4%), found incidentally. The materials were generally located within the upper cheek and zygoma (n=35, 66.0%), radiographically well-defined (n=44, 83%), and had no effects on the surrounding structures (n=27, 50.9%). The internal structure was radiopaque (calcification, hyperdensity) for gold wires, CaHa, bone implants, and secondary calcification or ossification. Outdated cosmetic materials or non-conservative techniques were infiltrative, had effects on the surrounding structures, and presented with clinical signs, symptoms, or complications. Conclusion: Conventional radiography, cone-beam computed tomography, and multi-detector computed tomography are useful to differentiate several cosmetic materials. Their magnetic resonance imaging appearance was highly variable. The infrequent inclusion of cosmetic materials in the differential diagnosis implies that medical and dental specialists may be unfamiliar with the radiographic appearance of these materials in the face.

Indexed as

Dermal FillersDiagnostic ImagingFaceSystematic Review

Identifiers

PMID35799966
PMCPMC9226230
OpenAlexW4284963711

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.