ReviewCureus2024
Maxillofacial Reconstruction With Three Dimensional Resin Bone Substitutes as an Alternative to Transition Group of Metals: A Structured Review.
Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In recent years, novel technologies and techniques have allowed today the production of controlled architecture materials. Although autogenous bone graft substitutes remain the gold standard, enormous defects require supplementary alloplastic substitutes for reconstruction. Polymers have lately been explored for the same purpose and their biological performance has been under research since the last decade. The aim of this review is to analyse maxillofacial reconstruction with three-dimensional resin bone substitutes. A Problem Intervention Comparison Outcomes (PICO) analysis was done and a search was carried out in the Cochrane Database, PubMed, Google Scholar etc databases and a hand search was done to collect the related literature. All articles for maxillofacial reconstruction with three-dimensional resin bone substitutes were scrutinised. The manuscripts published from 1990 till May 2021, were included in this review. A total of 106 articles were obtained from a PICO-based keyword search, and 91 manuscripts were retrieved after excluding the duplicates. Out of these 57 manuscripts were excluded on the basis of title and abstract. From the remaining 34 studies, 17 were excluded after reading the full text based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. During data extraction, four studies were removed and finally, 13 studies were included in this research. From this scoping review, we could conclude that polymethylmethacrylate and polylactic acid formulations are very promising resin bone substitutes for 3-dimensional reconstruction of maxillofacial defects. However, rigorous long-term clinical trials are needed to validate this conclusion.
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.