ArticleBMC oral health2025
Biomechanical comparison of the efficacy of Cfr-PEEK and titanium systems in the fixation following sagittal split advancement osteotomy: a biomechanical study.
Article in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- PEEK in modern maxillofacial surgery: clinical applications, limitations and future opportunities.British dental journal · 2026Review
- Clinical durability of junction-terminating CFR-PEEK constructs in oncologic spine surgery: a single-center retrospective analysis.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study evaluates the efficacy of carbon fiber reinforced Polyetheretherketone (Cfr-PEEK) in fixation after sagittal split ramus osteotomy (SSRO) by comparing it with titanium in vitro.
methodsTwenty-eight sheep hemimandibles were randomly assigned to four groups for SSRO surgery. Fixation was performed with a 4-hole titanium mini plate for 5 mm advancement in Group 1, with a 4-hole Cfr-PEEK mini plate for 5 mm advancement for Group 2, with a 4-hole titanium mini plate for 10 mm advancement for Group 3, and with a 4-hole Cfr-PEEK mini plate for 10 mm advancement for Group 4. A linear vertical load of 50 N was applied to all models from the molar region. Displacement values were recorded digitally.
resultsThere was a significant difference among the displacement values of four groups (p < 0.05). The highest displacement values were observed in group 2 and the lowest in group 3. The Cfr-PEEK plates' fixed groups showed lower displacement values than their titanium counterparts.
conclusionsAccording to this study, Cfr-PEEK provides better stability than titanium by considering the displacement values. However, future experimental and clinical studies that include larger samples and different designs need to be done.
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.