ArticleScientific reports2025
Efficacy of 3D-printed patient specific implant for orbital wall fracture repair in a series of 40 patients.
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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reconstruction of an orbital fracture in a mare using a 3D-printed patient-specific implant.Veterinary surgery : VS · 2026Article
- Managing Orbital Floor Fractures With Three-Dimensional (3D)-Printed Surgical Guides: A Narrative Review.Cureus · 2026Review
- Bioprinting for craniofacial reconstruction: A review of advancements, clinical use, and challenges.Journal of cranio-maxillo-facial surgery : official publication of the European Association for Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery · 2025Review
- Usefulness of Polycaprolactone and Beta-tricalcium Phosphate Implant for Reconstruction After Mandibular Reduction.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2025Article
- 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study was aimed to evaluate the efficacy of a 3D-printed patient specific implant (PSI) made of polycaprolactone (PCL) in repairing orbital wall fractures. We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent surgical repair for unilateral orbital wall fractures using a 3D-printed PCL PSI. Computed tomography scans were used to compare the orbital tissue volumes and the morphological similarity (root-mean-square [RMS] conformance distance) between the fractured wall and the mirrored counterpart before and after surgery. All orbital fractures (inferior wall, 19; medial wall, 9; and combined inferior and medial walls, 12) were successfully repaired without postoperative complications. The mean time for implant insertion during surgery was 19.8 s (range, 3-60). The mean orbital tissue volume ratio between the fractured orbit and the contralateral normal orbit significantly decreased after surgery (109.0% preoperatively vs. 100.6% at postoperative 6 months, P < 0.001, paired t-test). The median RMS conformance distance significantly decreased after surgery (3.426 mm preoperatively vs. 1.073 mm at postoperative 6 months, P < 0.001, Wilcoxon signed-rank test). Our findings suggest that using a 3D-printed PCL PSI could effectively restore the original volume and shape of the orbit, thus being a valuable addition to the surgeon's armamentarium for managing orbital wall fractures.
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.