ReviewFrontiers in surgery2024
Advancements in facial implantology: a review of hydroxyapatite applications and outcomes.
Review in Frontiers in surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Current Status and Perception of Biostimulators in China: A Cross-Sectional Study on Medical Professionals and Patients.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The search for an ideal bone substitute in reconstructive surgery has led to the exploration of various materials, with hydroxyapatite (HaP) emerging as a promising candidate due to its biocompatibility, osteoconductive properties, and structural similarity to human bone. Despite its potential, there is a paucity of data on the long-term safety and efficacy of HaP in facial skeletal reconstruction and augmentation. Methods: We conducted a systematic review following PRISMA 2020 guidelines, searching PubMed/MEDLINE, Google Scholar, CENTRAL, and Web of Science databases for studies on hydroxyapatite facial implants in reconstruction and augmentation. Results: Our search yielded 12 studies that met our inclusion criteria, encompassing 74 patients treated with HaP implants for various indications including facial fractures/defects, aesthetic facial balancing, and after tumor resection. The studies reported on outcomes such as implant integration, complications, aesthetic results, and patient satisfaction, with a general trend indicating positive outcomes for the use of HaP in facial reconstruction. Conclusion: Hydroxyapatite appears to be a viable and effective material for facial skeletal reconstruction and augmentation, offering benefits in terms of biocompatibility, osteoconductivity, and patient outcomes. However, limitations such as low mechanical strength and the need for further research on long-term safety and efficacy were identified. This review underscores the potential of HaP in craniofacial surgery while highlighting areas for future investigation.
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.