ArticleScientific reports2025
Validation of mixed reality in planning orbital reconstruction with patient-specific implants.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Three-Dimensional Globe Repositioning Following Orbital Reconstruction Independent of Bony Landmarks and Fracture Pattern Associations.Craniomaxillofacial trauma & reconstruction · 2026Article
- Redefining Digital Dentistry: Multidisciplinary Applications of 3D Printing for Personalized Dental Care.Cureus · 2025Review
- Patient-specific implants for orbital fracture surgery.Taiwan journal of ophthalmologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aims to evaluate and compare the usability and performance of mixed reality (MR) technology versus conventional methods for preoperative planning of patient-specific reconstruction plates for orbital fractures. A crossover study design was used to compare MR technology with conventional three-dimensional (3D) printing approaches in the planning of maxillofacial traumatology treatments. The primary focus was on user-friendliness and the accuracy of patient-specific reconstruction planning. Secondary outcomes included investigating time differences between the two approaches and evaluating the potential effects on the learning curve. Participants were asked to complete questionnaires assessing various aspects, such as visualization, interaction, segmentation, treatment planning, and evaluation. Objective endpoints were evaluated blindly, while subjective endpoints were analyzed through a double-blind process. The total workflow time for MR technology was significantly shorter compared to the conventional method. Moreover, treatment planning using MR was significantly more accurate (p = .028), with participants reporting a higher mean global satisfaction score compared to the conventional group (80.6% vs. 72.5%). This study sheds light on the potential benefits of employing MR technology in maxillofacial orbital reconstruction. This preoperative method allows for faster and more precise design of patient-specific implants for orbital reconstruction, potentially leading to improved long-term cost-effectiveness.
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.