ReviewFrontiers in surgery2024
Balancing beauty and science: a review of facial implant materials in craniofacial surgery.
Review in Frontiers in surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic review of implant materials for facial reconstructive and aesthetic surgery.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Complications After Patient-specific Implants for Facial Contouring and Augmentation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2026Article
- PEEK in modern maxillofacial surgery: clinical applications, limitations and future opportunities.British dental journal · 2026Review
- Biomechanical comparison of three-dimensional titanium and CFR-PEEK plates for mandibular subcondylar fracture fixation: a three-dimensional finite element analysis.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Hybrid Bioceramic: A Synergistic Platform for Structural Reinforcement and Bioelectric Stimulation Toward Smart Medical Devices.Small (Weinheim an der Bergstrasse, Germany) · 2026Article
- Evaluation of Factors Affecting Bone Resorption After Eyebrow Arch Prosthesis Implantation Based on CT Three-Dimensional Imaging.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Article
- AI-Based Quantitative and Objective Analysis of Aesthetic Results in Genioplasty.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Article
- Multi-fragment Onlay Reconstruction in Forehead Contouring Surgery: A Novel Hardware-Free Technique for Frontal Sinus Remodeling.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Article
- Integrated polyetheretherketone patient-specific implants for multi-subunit midface concavity: a retrospective case series.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- A Case Report on the Application of a 3D Printed Patient-specific Zygomatic Implant for a Post-traumatic Facial Deformity.Acta medica Philippina · 2026Article
- Polyetheretherketone for craniomaxillofacial defects: cases report, evaluation of patients' satisfaction and a systematic literature review.Maxillofacial plastic and reconstructive surgery · 2025Article
- 3D Printing in Nasal Reconstruction: Application-Based Evidence on What Works, When, and Why.Biomedicines · 2025Review
- Implant-Based Chin Augmentation Vs Osseous Genioplasty: A Systematic Review of Indications and Outcomes.Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum · 2025Review
- Osseous Genioplasty and Its Impact on Airway Volume-What is the Evidence?Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum · 2025Review
- Analysis of influencing factors on postoperative complications of closed approach autologous granular rib cartilage rhinoplasty and construction and verification of nomogram.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
- Assessment of craniofacial implants in restoring facial function and aesthetics.Bioinformation · 2025Article
- Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Reconstruction with Polyetheretherketone Patient-Specific Implants: Aesthetic and Functional Outcomes.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Article
- Reconstruction of Craniomaxillofacial Bone Defects with 3D-Printed Bioceramic Implants: Scoping Review and Clinical Case Series.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Surface modification of PEEK implants for craniofacial reconstruction and aesthetic augmentation-fiction or reality?Frontiers in surgery · 2024Review
- Case Report: Facial fracture sequelae: the importance of using a specific customized implant (PSI) for orbital reconstruction.Frontiers in surgery · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Facial reconstruction and augmentation, integral in facial plastic surgery, address defects related to trauma, tumors infections, and congenital skeletal deficiencies. Aesthetic considerations, including age-related facial changes, involve volume loss and diminished projection, often associated with predictable changes in the facial skeleton. Autologous, allogeneic, and alloplastic implants are used to address these concerns. Autologous materials such as bone, cartilage, and fat, while longstanding options, have limitations, including unpredictability and resorption rates. Alloplastic materials, including metals, polymers, and ceramics, offer alternatives. Metals like titanium are biocompatible and used primarily in fracture fixation. Polymers, such as silicone and polyethylene, are widely used, with silicone presenting migration, bony resorption, and visibility issues. Polyethylene, particularly porous polyethylene (MedPor), was reported to have one of the lowest infection rates while it becomes incorporated into the host. Polyether-ether-ketone (PEEK) exhibits mechanical strength and compatibility with imaging modalities, with custom PEEK implants providing stable results. Acrylic materials, like poly-methylmethacrylate (PMMA), offer strength and is thus mostly used in the case of cranioplasty. Bioceramics, notably hydroxyapatite (HaP), offer osteoconductive and inductive properties, and HaP granules demonstrate stable volume retention in facial aesthetic augmentation. Combining HaP with other materials, such as PLA, may enhance mechanical stability. 3D bioprinting with HaP-based bioinks presents a promising avenue for customizable and biocompatible implants. In conclusion, various materials have been used for craniofacial augmentation, but none have definitively demonstrated superiority. Larger randomized controlled trials are essential to evaluate short- and long-term complications comprehensively, potentially revolutionizing facial balancing surgery.
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.