ArticleThe Saudi dental journal2024
Cutting guides in mandibular tumor ablation: Are we as accurate as we think?
Article in The Saudi dental journal, 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.
- Automatic positioning of cutting planes for bone tumor resection surgery.Medical & biological engineering & computing · 2025Article
- Evaluation of angulation and distance deviation for robot-guided laser osteotomy - a follow-up study on digital high-tech procedures.Frontiers in robotics and AI · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Tumor margin status is critical in local tumor recurrence and is a significant prognostic factor in head and neck cancer survival. With the introduction of computer-assisted surgical planning, one of the main challenges is the accurate positioning of the surgical cutting guide but there is limited evidence of the accuracy of the 3D cutting guides in mimicking virtually planned osteotomy. This study evaluates the accuracy of osteotomy lines produced by 3D-printed cutting guides and assesses the overall accuracy of mandibular reconstruction. Material and Methods: The pre and postoperative 3D models were aligned using an automated surface registration feature based on the iterative closest point algorithm. The differences in osteotomy line deviation, linear and angle measurements, and 3D volume quantification of the pre and post models were measured. Results: We included 14 patients (8 men and 6 women with ages ranging from 13 to 75 years) with a segmental mandibular resection who met all of the inclusion criteria. The smallest defect size was 4.4 cm, the largest defect was 12.2 cm, and the average was 7.30 cm +/- 2.80 cm. The average deviation between virtually planned osteotomy and actual surgical osteotomy was 1.52 +/-1.02 mm. No covariates were associated with increased inaccuracy of the 3D-printed cutting guides. Conclusion: The finding of this study suggests that virtual surgical planning is an unambiguous paradigm shift in the predictability of the surgical plan and achievement of the reconstruction goals. The 3D-printed cutting guides are a very accurate and reliable tool in translating virtual ablation plans to an actual surgical resection margin.
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.