SynthesisAesthetic plastic surgery2025
Comparative Analysis of Tear Strength Across Different Types of Maxillofacial Silicone Materials: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Aesthetic plastic 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
Abstract
backgroundMaxillofacial materials have been developed to provide natural and long-lasting prosthetic solutions for patients with facial anomalies caused by trauma, surgery, or congenital diseases. The durability and lifespan of maxillofacial silicone materials are important factors to consider in prosthetic rehabilitation. The tear strength of these materials is a crucial characteristic that directly affects their ability to withstand wear, tear, and deformation over time. Comprehending the comparative examination of tear strength among various maxillofacial silicone materials is crucial to identifying the most appropriate material. This study aimed to compare tear strength among different types of maxillofacial silicone materials.
methodsPertinent data for the current study were obtained from three databases: Web of Science, Cochrane, Scopus, Embase, and PubMed. The study objectives and topics were used to identify pertinent terms, which were then combined using the Boolean operators "OR" and "AND". The search queries generated for each database were utilized to obtain articles from the beginning until December 2024.
resultsTwelve articles were eligible to be included in this study. The described types of maxillofacial silicone materials included VST50F maxillofacial silicone, A-2186 Platinum RTV Silicone Elastomer, and M511 Platinum silicone elastomer. The tear strength proportions of the VST-50 maxillofacial silicone elastomer, A-2186 RTV, and M511 platinum were 0.37, 0.29, and 0.33, respectively. The addition of additive particles to silicone maxillofacial materials significantly improved tear strength (SMD = 4.25, 95% CI: 2.32, 6.18, (p = 0.0001)) compared to the control group.
conclusionsBased on the present finding, 2186-RTV platinum maxillofacial silicone material exhibits strong tear strength, followed by VST50F maxillofacial silicone as a result of reinforced nano-filler particles (TiO2). LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
Indexed as
Identifiers
40180644What 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.