ArticleCancers2025
Maxillectomy Guided by 3D Printing Versus Conventional Surgery for Patients with Head and Neck Cancer.
Article in Cancers, 2025. 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.
- Clinical Efficacy and Accuracy of 3D-Printed Medical Devices: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Health science reports · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study evaluates the impact of three-dimensional (3D) printing-guided maxillectomy compared with conventional maxillectomy on surgical precision and oncological outcomes in patients with head and neck cancer. MATERIALS AND
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on 42 patients undergoing maxillectomy (16 in a 3D printing-guided group and 26 in a conventional group). Patient demographics, tumor characteristics, and outcomes were compared. Survival outcomes were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method.
resultsThe 3D printing group showed higher rates of negative resection margins (81.3% vs. 76.9%) compared with the conventional group and a trend toward improved 5-year local recurrence-free survival (87.5% vs. 58.7%, respectively) and overall survival (84.4% vs. 70.1%, respectively). However, the differences were not statistically significant.
conclusionsMaxillectomy guided by 3D printing may offer enhanced surgical precision and improved local control in patients undergoing head and neck cancer surgeries. Further research with larger cohorts is necessary to confirm these findings.
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.