ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2024
Comparison of Patient-Specific Condylar Positioning Devices and Manual Methods in Orthognathic Surgery: A Prospective Randomized Trial.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of Preoperative Condylar Volume on Postoperative Displacement in Asymmetric Mandibular Setback Surgery: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Article
- Effect of Counterclockwise Mandibular Autorotation on Temporomandibular Joint Spaces and Condylar Morphology After Bimaxillary Orthognathic Surgery: A CBCT-Based Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study investigated whether patient-specific condylar positioning devices (CPDs) are beneficial compared to the conventional manual positioning of the condyles.
methodsIn this prospective, randomized trial, patients undergoing orthognathic surgery with a bilateral sagittal split osteotomy of the mandible were included. The ascending ramus was positioned with computer-aided designed and computer-aided manufactured (CAD/CAM) patient-specific devices in the CPD group and manually in the control group. Postoperatively, cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) was performed to align the virtually planned position with the postoperative result.
resultsThirty patients were enrolled in the study, with 14 randomized to the CPD group and 16 to the control group. In the CPD group, the ascending ramus differed in the postoperative CBCT scan from the virtually planned position by 0.8 mm in the left/right, 0.8 mm in the front/back, and 1.3 mm in the cranial/caudal direction. The corresponding control-group values were 1.1 mm, 1.3 mm, and 1.6 mm. CPD and controls differed significantly for the left/right movement of the rami (
conclusionsThe results demonstrate that both methods are accurate, and postoperative results matched the virtually planned position precisely. It can be assumed that the described CPDs are beneficial when a condylar position different from the preoperative is desired.
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.