ArticleScientific reports2023
The simplified tailor-made workflows for a 3D slicer-based craniofacial implant design.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Mandibular Defect Dataset for Autonomous Reconstruction Planning in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery.Scientific data · 2025Article
- Cranial, nasal, and orbital asymmetry and sexual dimorphism in Turkish adults: a high-resolution 3D morphometric study.Surgical and radiologic anatomy : SRA · 2025Article
- 3D Printing Applications for Craniomaxillofacial Reconstruction: A Sweeping Review.ACS biomaterials science & engineering · 2023Review
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
A specific design of craniofacial implant model is vital and urgent for patients with traumatic head injury. The mirror technique is commonly used for modeling these implants, but it requires the presence of a healthy skull region opposite to the defect. To address this limitation, we propose three processing workflows for modeling craniofacial implants: the mirror method, the baffle planner, and the baffle-based mirror guideline. These workflows are based on extension modules on the 3D Slicer platform and were developed to simplify the modeling process for a variety of craniofacial scenarios. To evaluate the effectiveness of these proposed workflows, we investigated craniofacial CT datasets collected from four accidental cases. The designed implant models were created using the three proposed workflows and compared to reference models created by an experienced neurosurgeon. The spatial properties of the models were evaluated using performance metrics. Our results show that the mirror method is suitable for cases where a healthy skull region can be completely reflected to the defect region. The baffle planner module offers a flexible prototype model that can be fit independently to any defect location, but it requires customized refinement of contour and thickness to fill the missing region seamlessly and relies on the user's experience and expertise. The proposed baffle-based mirror guideline method strengthens the baffle planner method by tracing the mirrored surface. Overall, our study suggests that the three proposed workflows for craniofacial implant modeling simplify the process and can be practically applied to a variety of craniofacial scenarios. These findings have the potential to improve the care of patients with traumatic head injuries and could be used by neurosurgeons and other medical professionals.
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.