ArticleClinical oral investigations2024
Digital analysis of the human maxilla to enable semistandardized template tool reconstructions with free fibula transplants.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThis study analyzed the human maxilla to support the development of mean-value-based cutting guide systems for maxillary reconstruction, bridging the gap between freehand techniques and virtual surgical planning (VSP). MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective cohort study used routine CT scans. DICOM data enabled 3D modelling and the maxilla was divided into four regions: paranasal (R1), facial maxillary sinus wall (R2), zygomatic bone (R3) and alveolar process (R4). Surface comparisons were made with a reference skull. Statistical analyses assessed anatomical variations, focusing on mean distance (Dmean), area of valid distance (AVD), integrated distance (ID) and integrated absolute distance (IAD). The study addressed hemimaxillectomy defects for two-segmental reconstructions using seven defined bilateral points to determine segmental distances and angles.
resultsData from 50 patients showed R2 as the most homogeneous and R4 as the most heterogeneous region. Significant age and gender differences were found in R3 and R4, with younger patients and females having more outliers. Cluster analysis indicated that males had R1 and R3 positioned anterior to the reference skull. The mean angle for segmental reconstruction was 131.24° ± 1.29°, with anterior segment length of 30.71 ± 0.57 mm and posterior length of 28.15 ± 0.86 mm.
conclusionsAnatomical analysis supported the development of semistandardized segmental resection approaches. Although gender and anatomical differences were noted, they did not significantly impact the feasibility of mean-value-based cutting-guide systems. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study provides essential anatomical data for creating cost-effective and efficient reconstruction options for maxillary defects, potentially improving surgical outcomes and expanding reconstructive possibilities beyond current techniques.
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.