ArticleJournal of personalized medicine2024
Evaluation of a 3D Printed Silicone Oral Cavity Cancer Model for Surgical Simulations.
Article in Journal of personalized 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.
- Comparison of industrial- and medical-grade silicone phantoms for surgical laser training in dental students.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Development of an electrosurgery-compatible simulation task for quantitatively assessing oral cancer resection skills: initial validity evidence.BMC medical education · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Adequate surgical margins are essential in oral cancer treatment, this is, however, difficult to appreciate during training. With advances in training aids, we propose a silicone-based surgical simulator to improve training proficiency for the ablation of oral cavity cancers. A silicone-based tongue cancer model constructed via a 3D mold was compared to a porcine tongue model used as a training model. Participants of varying surgical experience were then asked to resect the tumors with clear margins, and thereafter asked to fill out a questionnaire to evaluate the face and content validity of the models as a training tool. Eleven participants from the Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery unit were included in this pilot study. In comparison to the porcine model, the silicone model attained a higher face (4 vs. 3.6) and content validity (4.4 vs. 4.1). Tumor consistency was far superior in the silicone model compared to the porcine model (4.1 vs. 2.8,
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.