SynthesisOral and maxillofacial surgery2025
Efficacy of absorbable vs. non-absorbable patient-specific, 3D-printed implants for the treatment of facial bone fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Oral and maxillofacial surgery, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis systematic review and meta-analysis compares the efficacy and complication rate of absorbable versus non-absorbable 3D-printed, patient-customized, maxillofacial implants in facial trauma patients. DATA SOURCES: A comprehensive search of four databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane) was conducted.
methodsA systematic review and single-proportion meta-analysis was conducted employing PRISMA guidelines. A comprehensive search of four databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane) yielded a total of 4087 results. After removing duplicates, 16 articles underwent full-text analysis, with 13 meeting the inclusion criteria. The inclusion focused on primary clinical data involving 3D-printed, patient-specific implants for facial bone fracture restorations. Exclusion criteria removed studies without full text, ongoing studies, animal studies, and studies not utilizing CAD/CAM for their implants.
resultsA total of 114 patients underwent insertion of 3D-printed implants. Patients receiving non-absorbable implants had a success rate of 84% (95% CI: 74-91), with complications in 12 patients. Patients receiving absorbable implants achieved a 100% success rate (95% CI: 0-100), with zero complications.
conclusionThe study suggests absorbable 3D-printed implants provide superior results with fewer complications compared to non-absorbable 3D-printed implants for the treatment of facial fractures. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39804429What 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.