ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2022
Current Concepts in Cranial Reconstruction: Review of Alloplastic Materials.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Autologous Fat Grafting Versus Alloplastic Materials in Post-Traumatic Urogenital Reconstruction.Cureus · 2025Article
- Cranial Bone Repair and Regeneration After Trauma: Forensic and Clinical Medico-Legal Consequences.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Saving exposed titanium mesh cranioplasty using adipocutaneous anterolateral thigh flap: A case series.JPRAS open · 2025Article
- Current State of Knowledge Regarding the Treatment of Cranial Bone Defects: An Overview.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Current State and Challenges of Tissue and Organ Cryopreservation in Biobanking.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- Review
- Biomaterials for Regenerative Cranioplasty: Current State of Clinical Application and Future Challenges.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2024Review
- Explanted Skull Flaps after Decompressive Hemicraniectomy Demonstrate Relevant Bone Avitality-Is Their Reimplantation Worth the Risk?Brain sciences · 2023Article
- Composite grafts made of polycaprolactone fiber mats and oil-based calcium phosphate cement pastes for the reconstruction of cranial and maxillofacial defects.Clinical oral investigations · 2023Article
- Chitosan-Based Membranes for Skin Wound Repair in a Dorsal Fold Chamber Rat Model.Pharmaceutics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cranioplasty for acquired cranial defects can be complex and challenging. Benefits include improved cosmesis, protection of intracranial structures, and restoration of neurocognitive function. These defects can be reconstructed with preserved craniectomy bone flaps, split autografts, or alloplastic materials. When alloplastic cranioplasty is planned, the material should be carefully selected. There is confusion on which material should be used in certain scenarios, particularly in composite defects. Methods: The PubMed database was used to conduct a nonsystematic review of literature related to these materials and the following factors: time required in preoperative planning and fabrication, intraoperative time, feasibility of intraoperative modification, fixation method (direct or indirect), implant cost, overall complication rate, and surgical revision rates. Results: Surgical revision rates for alloplastic materials range from 10% to 23%. Retention of titanium mesh at 4 years is 85% in composite reconstruction with free fasciocutaneous and free myocutaneous flaps. In composite reconstruction with locoregional and free muscle flaps, the retention of titanium mesh at 4 years is 47%. The retention of nontitanium and nonpreserved autogenous reconstruction is 72% and 82%, respectively. Conclusions: Alloplastic materials should be considered for reconstruction of large (>100 cm
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.