Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39639862›Full record

ReviewJPRAS open2025

From Novel Facial Measurements to Facial Implantology: A Systematic Review.

Helena Baecher, Alexandra Scheiflinger, Katya Remy, Niklas Straub, Bhagvat Maheta, Khalil Sherwani, Can Deniz, Samuel Knoedler, Ali-Farid Safi, Martin Kauke-Navarro and 2 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in JPRAS open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Helena BaecherDepartment of Cranio- and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospital Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany.
Alexandra ScheiflingerDepartment of Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Katya RemyDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Niklas StraubDepartment of Plastic Surgery, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany.
Bhagvat MahetaDepartment of Surgery, California Northstate University College of Medicine, Elk Grove, CA, USA.
Khalil SherwaniDepartment of Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Can DenizCraniologicum, Center for Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery, Bern, Switzerland.
Samuel KnoedlerDepartment of Surgery, Division of Plastic Surgery, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.
Ali-Farid SafiCraniologicum, Center for Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery, Bern, Switzerland.
Martin Kauke-NavarroDepartment of Surgery, Division of Plastic Surgery, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.
Max HeilandCharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Berlin, Germany.
Leonard KnoedlerCharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Berlin, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Facial implants have emerged as pivotal tools for both reconstructive and aesthetic skull bone augmentation. Contemporary manufacturing techniques, such as computer-aided design and manufacturing (CAD-CAM) systems, have revolutionized facial implants production, providing the advantages of high-level individualization. However, the absence of standardized facial measurements complicates the ability to accurately compare outcomes across various techniques. This systematic review investigates the strengths and limitations of various facial measurements employed in facial implants, with a particular focus on their impact on aesthetic outcomes and potential complications. Methods: We identified 13 studies in our comprehensive search across PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases. Results: In total, 620 patients were included. The majority of the chosen studies focused on aesthetic purposes (69%). Primarily, mandibular (46%) or nasal regions (23%) were investigated, with porous polyethylene (31%), silicone (23%), and polyetheretherketone (23%) being the most utilized materials. Despite considerable heterogeneity in measurement approaches, including variations in reference points and angles, complications such as surgical site infections and nerve-related injuries were reported in the included studies. Conclusion: Our review highlights the importance of standardized facial analysis for optimal implant planning. Future research should prioritize the development of uniform measurement concepts tailored to diverse implant applications to enhance outcomes and patient satisfaction in facial implantation.

Indexed as

Alloplastic augmentationAnthropometric analysisFacial implantsFacial measurementsFacial surgery

Identifiers

PMID39639862
PMCPMC11616477

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.