ArticleCraniomaxillofacial trauma & reconstruction2025
Patient-Specific Solutions for Cranial, Midface, and Mandible Reconstruction Following Ablative Surgery: Expert Opinion and a Consensus on the Guidelines and Workflow.
Article in Craniomaxillofacial trauma & reconstruction, 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.
- Delayed implant rehabilitation following iliac crest grafting for traumatic dentoalveolar defects: a prospective single-arm interventional clinical study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence-enabled Automatic Computed Tomography Segmentation for Craniomaxillofacial Surgery Using a Real Surgical Database.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2026Article
- 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Reconstruction of cranio-maxillofacial defects following ablative surgeries requires a comprehensive approach that balances functional restoration with aesthetic outcomes. Advances in computer-aided design and manufacturing (CAD/CAM) technology have revolutionized this field, enabling precise preoperative planning, including 3D modeling, segmentation, and virtual resection planning. These methods allow for the production of patient-specific implants and surgical templates while facilitating the evaluation of treatment outcomes. CAD/CAM technology offers numerous benefits, such as enhanced surgical accuracy, improved aesthetic results, reduced operative times, and the possibility of single-stage resection and reconstruction. However, limitations exist, including high costs, the need for specialized expertise, and dependency on accurate imaging data. This paper provides a surgeon-centric evaluation of the advantages and limitations of CAD/CAM in cranio-maxillofacial reconstruction. The discussion encompasses the technological workflow, clinical applications, and recommendations for optimizing outcomes. Future perspectives highlight ongoing developments, such as integrating non-ionizing imaging techniques and expanding the applicability of virtual and augmented reality. By synthesizing technical advancements and clinical expertise, this review aims to establish practical guidelines for implementing CAD/CAM technology in routine surgical practice.
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.