ArticleJournal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences2024
Exploring the use of Virtual Surgical Planning (VSP) in Maxillofacial Reconstructions.
Article in Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Virtual surgical planning (VSG), also known as computer-assisted reconstruction, has started to become the norm for more complex patients in many centers in recent times. Aim: This study was conducted to evaluate the VSG in maxillofacial reconstruction surgery. Methods and Materials: This study included 20 patients who underwent surgery for maxillofacial reconstruction. The study participants were divided into two main categories: Category 1: Conventional surgical planning (CSG). Category 2: VSG. The surgical planning in both categories, including the evaluation of volume of defect, length, width, and height of graft, to be placed. Results: The gap between defect to be reconstructed and graft placed was greater in CSG as compared to VSG. The distance of graft from actual location was lesser in VSG as compared to CSG. The findings were significant statistically. Frequency of success was 93.21% and 97.47%, respectively. The frequency of success was greater in VSG as compared to CSG. Conclusion: Virtual surgical planning is more effective in maxillofacial reconstruction surgery.
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.