ArticleJournal of personalized medicine2023
Comparison of Anatomical Preformed Titanium Implants and Patient-Specific CAD/CAM Implants in the Primary Reconstruction of Isolated Orbital Fractures-A Retrospective Study.
Article in Journal of personalized medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Long-term stability of ocular function after alloplastic computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing reconstruction of posttraumatic orbital defects: a retrospective cohort study.Head & face medicine · 2026Article
- Polyetheretherketone for craniomaxillofacial defects: cases report, evaluation of patients' satisfaction and a systematic literature review.Maxillofacial plastic and reconstructive surgery · 2025Article
- Efficacy of 3D-printed patient specific implant for orbital wall fracture repair in a series of 40 patients.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Patient-specific implants for orbital fracture surgery.Taiwan journal of ophthalmologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimReconstruction of the fractured orbit remains a challenge. The aim of this study was to compare anatomical preformed titanium orbital implants with patient-specific CAD/CAM implants for precision and intraoperative applicability. MATERIAL AND
methodsA total of 75 orbital reconstructions from 2012 to 2022 were retrospectively assessed for their precision of implant position and intra- and postoperative revision rates. For this purpose, the implant position after digital orbital reconstruction was checked for deviations by mirroring the healthy orbit at 5 defined points, and the medical records of the patients were checked for revisions.
resultsThe evaluation of the 45 anatomical preformed orbital implant cases showed significantly higher deviations and an implant inaccuracy of 66.6% than the 30 CAD/CAM cases with only 10% inaccuracy. In particular, the CAD/CAM implants were significantly more precise in medial and posterior positioning. In addition, the intraoperative revision rates of 26.6% vs. 11% after 3D intraoperative imaging and the postoperative revision rates of 13% vs. 0 for the anatomical preformed implants were significantly higher than for patient-specific implants.
conclusionWe conclude that patient-specific CAD/CAM orbital implants are highly suitable for primary orbital reconstruction. These seem to be preferable to anatomical preformed implants in terms of precision and revision rates.
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.