ArticleJournal of maxillofacial and oral surgery2024
Reconstruction of Maxillary Defects Using Virtual Surgical Planning and Additive Manufacturing Technology: A Tertiary Care Centre Experience.
Article in Journal of maxillofacial and oral surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- MaxI-Net: A 3D AI Framework for CBCT-Based Maxillofacial Defect Reconstruction and Patient-Specific Implant Generation with Biomechanical Validation.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Current status and prospects of computer-assisted surgery (CAS) in oral and maxillofacial reconstruction.International journal of clinical oncology · 2026Review
- Current Trends and Innovations in Oral and Maxillofacial Reconstruction.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2025Review
- Research trends of bone tumor treatment with 3D printing technology from 2013 to 2022: a bibliometric analysis.Discover oncology · 2024Article
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
Introduction: Maxillary reconstruction is often a challenging task for the surgeons because of the complex anatomy. However, with the advances in virtual surgical planning (VSP) and 3D printing technology there is a new avenue for the surgeons which offers a suitable alternative to conventional flap-based reconstructions. Patients and Methods: In this article, we have described 4 case scenarios which were managed with the help of VSP and additive manufacturing technology for complex maxillary reconstruction procedures. Use of the technologies aided the clinician in achieving optimal outcomes with regards to form, function and esthetics. Discussion: Virtual surgical planning (VSP) has gained a lot of impetus in past 1 decade. These aides the surgeon in determining the extent of disease and also carry out the treatment planning. In addition to VSP, the concept of additive manufacturing provides a viable alternative to the conventional reconstruction modalities for maxillary defect rehabilitation. Increased accuracy, rehabilitation of normal anatomical configuration, appropriate dental rehabilitation, decreased intra-operative time and post-operative complications are some of the advantages. In addition, patient-specific implants eliminate the need for a separate donor site. Apart from the treatment of pathologies, they also can be used for reconstruction of post-traumatic defect, where endosteal implant placement is not possible. Conclusion: These modalities show promising results for reconstruction of complex maxillary defects.
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.