ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2024
Reconstruction of Craniomaxillofacial Bone Defects with 3D-Printed Bioceramic Implants: Scoping Review and Clinical Case Series.
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 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Injectable Hydroxyapatite and Tetracalcium Phosphate Granules Combined with Autologous Bone Marrow Concentrate: Toward Shape-Adaptive, Single-Step Bone Regeneration.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence and Digital Workflow in Craniofacial Bone Tissue Engineering: From Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) to Personalized Bioceramic Implants.Dentistry journal · 2026Review
- From Bench to Bone: Translational Pathways of Nanomaterial-Based Therapies in Craniomaxillomandibulofacial and Cranial Vault Reconstruction.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Complications After Patient-specific Implants for Facial Contouring and Augmentation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2026Article
- Three-Dimensional Printing and Personalized Bioceramic Scaffolds for Dental and Maxillofacial Applications: A Narrative Review.Dentistry journal · 2026Review
- Innovations in Implant Osseointegration: Biomaterials, Surface Engineering, and Translational Strategies.Journal of biomedical materials research. Part A · 2026Review
- Dental Implant Osseointegration Following Mandibular Augmentation Using 3D Printed Hydroxyapatite Blocks. An Experimental In Vivo Study.Clinical oral implants research · 2026Article
- Next-generation craniomaxillofacial implants for reconstructive surgery: balancing biomechanics, biocompatibility, and bioactivity.International journal of oral science · 2026Review
- Recent Advances in Silk Fibroin Derived fromJournal of functional biomaterials · 2025Review
- A 3D Printed Hydroxyapatite Implant for Temporal Hollowing Reconstruction: A Patient-Specific Approach.Craniomaxillofacial trauma & reconstruction · 2025Article
- Redefining Digital Dentistry: Multidisciplinary Applications of 3D Printing for Personalized Dental Care.Cureus · 2025Review
- Current State of Knowledge Regarding the Treatment of Cranial Bone Defects: An Overview.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Review
- Early osteointegration in "one-step" resection and reconstruction using porous hydroxyapatite custom implants for skull-infiltrating tumors: a monocentric prospective series.Acta neurochirurgica · 2024Article
- Impact of Particle Size and Sintering Temperature on Calcium Phosphate Gyroid Structure Scaffolds for Bone Tissue Engineering.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2024Article
- Research advances in bioactive bone graft materials and bone marrow enrichment techniques for bone defect treatment.Cell transplantationReview
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
Reconstruction of craniomaxillofacial bone defects using 3D-printed hydroxyapatite (HA) bioceramic patient-specific implants (PSIs) is a new technique with great potential. This study aimed to investigate the advantages, disadvantages, and clinical outcomes of these implants in craniomaxillofacial surgeries. The PubMed and Embase databases were searched for patients with craniomaxillofacial bone defects treated with bioceramic PSIs. Clinical outcomes such as biocompatibility, biomechanical properties, and aesthetics were evaluated and compared to those of commonly used titanium or poly-ether-ether-ketone (PEEK) implants and autologous bone grafts. Two clinical cases are presented to illustrate the surgical procedure and clinical outcomes of HA bioceramic PSIs. Literature review showed better a biocompatibility of HA PSIs than titanium and PEEK. The initial biomechanical properties were inferior to those of autologous bone grafts, PEEK, and titanium but improved when integrated. Satisfactory aesthetic results were found in our two clinical cases with good stability and absence of bone resorption or infection. Radiological signs of osteogenesis were observed in the two clinical cases six months postoperatively. HA bioceramic PSIs have excellent biocompatible properties and imitate natural bone biomechanically and radiologically. They are a well-suited alternative for conventional biomaterials in the reconstruction of load-sharing bone defects in the craniomaxillofacial region.
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.