ReviewCureus2023
The Utility of 3D Printing for Surgical Planning and Patient-Specific Implant Design in Maxillofacial Surgery: A Narrative Review.
Review in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Fully Digital vs. Conventional Planning in Bimaxillary Orthognathic Surgery: Effects on 3D Accuracy and Surgical Efficiency.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Three-Dimensional Printing in Dentistry: Evolution, Technologies, and Clinical Application.Polymers · 2026Review
- Review
- Review
- Light-Assisted 3D-Printed Hydrogels for Antibacterial Applications.Small science · 2024Article
- Treatment Complications of Head and Neck Cancers and Rehabilitation Measures: A Narrative Review.Cureus · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Maxillofacial reconstructive implants are typically created in standard shapes and have a widespread application in head and neck surgery. During surgical procedures, the implant must be correctly bent according to the architecture of the particular bones. Bending takes practice, especially for untrained surgeons. Furthermore, repeated bending may increase internal stress, resulting in fatigue in vivo under masticatory loading and an array of consequences, including implant failure. There is a risk of fracture, screw loosening, and bone resorption. Resorption, infection, and displacement are usually associated with the use of premade alloplastic implants and autogenous grafts. Recent technological breakthroughs have led to the use of patient-specific implants (PSIs) developed by computer-designed additive manufacturing in reconstructive surgery. The use of computer-designed three-dimensional (3D)-printed PSI allows for more precise restoration of maxillofacial deformities, avoiding the common difficulties associated with premade implants and increasing patient satisfaction. Additive manufacturing is something that refers to a group of additive manufacturing methods. This technique has been quickly used in a variety of surgical procedures. The exponential expansion of this technology can be attributed to its enormous surgical value. Adding 3D printing to a medical practice can be a rewarding experience with stunning results.
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.