Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40591117›Full record

Article3D printing in medicine2025

Mandibular reconstruction outcomes for in-house patient-specific solutions.

Matthew D Marquardt, Erin Cowen, Rachel Fenberg, Natalia von Windheim, Margaret Lashutka, Abigail E Reid, Amit Agarwal, Enver K Ozer, Ricardo L Carrau, James W Rocco and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in 3D printing in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Matthew D Marquardt *Department of Otolaryngology- Head and Neck Surgery, The James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, 460 W 10th Ave, 5th Floor Clinic, Columbus, OH, 43220, USA.
Erin Cowen *Center for Design and Manufacturing Excellence, College of Engineering, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA.
Rachel FenbergDepartment of Otolaryngology- Head and Neck Surgery, The James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, 460 W 10th Ave, 5th Floor Clinic, Columbus, OH, 43220, USA.
Natalia von WindheimDepartment of Otolaryngology- Head and Neck Surgery, The James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, 460 W 10th Ave, 5th Floor Clinic, Columbus, OH, 43220, USA.
Margaret LashutkaCenter for Design and Manufacturing Excellence, College of Engineering, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA.
Abigail E ReidCreighton University School of Medicine, Omaha, NE, USA.
Amit AgarwalDepartment of Otolaryngology- Head and Neck Surgery, The James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, 460 W 10th Ave, 5th Floor Clinic, Columbus, OH, 43220, USA.
Enver K OzerDepartment of Otolaryngology- Head and Neck Surgery, The James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, 460 W 10th Ave, 5th Floor Clinic, Columbus, OH, 43220, USA.
Ricardo L CarrauDepartment of Otolaryngology- Head and Neck Surgery, The James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, 460 W 10th Ave, 5th Floor Clinic, Columbus, OH, 43220, USA.
James W RoccoDepartment of Otolaryngology- Head and Neck Surgery, The James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, 460 W 10th Ave, 5th Floor Clinic, Columbus, OH, 43220, USA.
Catherine T HaringDepartment of Otolaryngology- Head and Neck Surgery, The James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, 460 W 10th Ave, 5th Floor Clinic, Columbus, OH, 43220, USA.
Stephen Y KangDepartment of Otolaryngology- Head and Neck Surgery, The James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, 460 W 10th Ave, 5th Floor Clinic, Columbus, OH, 43220, USA.
Nolan B SeimDepartment of Otolaryngology- Head and Neck Surgery, The James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, 460 W 10th Ave, 5th Floor Clinic, Columbus, OH, 43220, USA.
Matthew O OldDepartment of Otolaryngology- Head and Neck Surgery, The James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, 460 W 10th Ave, 5th Floor Clinic, Columbus, OH, 43220, USA.
Kyle K VanKoeveringDepartment of Otolaryngology- Head and Neck Surgery, The James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, 460 W 10th Ave, 5th Floor Clinic, Columbus, OH, 43220, USA. Kyle.vankoevering@osumc.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSegmental mandibulectomy and mandibular reconstruction are often performed for various benign and malignant head and neck conditions. Standard of care reconstruction involves titanium plate fixation with tissue transfer. The advent of computer-aided design and manufacturing (CAD/CAM) has enhanced aesthetic and functional outcomes in mandibular reconstruction by enabling patient-specific solutions like 3D-printed anatomic models. At an increasing number of institutions, these solutions can be produced in-house via point-of-care manufacturing. Since little has been published on the accuracy and outcomes of this approach, this study sought to evaluate the reconstructive accuracy and clinical outcomes of patients who received in-house patient-specific mandible models.

methodsA retrospective chart review was conducted of 44 patients from a large midwestern academic medical center who received point-of-care patient-specific 3D printed models to assist in segmental mandibulectomy and reconstruction from December 2020 to June 2022. CAD/CAM models were produced from pre- and post-operative CT scans. Pre- and post-operative scans were aligned using a novel reference landmark-the maxilla. Measurements were taken by two different researchers at the mandibular condyles, coronoids, angles as well as a plane from the maxilla to the mandibular pogonion to determine reconstructive accuracy. Inter-rater reliability was assessed via intraclass correlation coefficient. Demographic, clinical, surgical, and radiographic variables were also collected to profile cohort characteristics and outcomes.

resultsAfter exclusions due to poor or no post-operative imaging, 25 patients were included in the final analysis. Squamous cell carcinoma (n = 19) was the most common pathology, and males (n = 18) were represented more than females (n = 7). 96% (24/25) of patients had good plate adaptation and 96% (24/25) had good osteotomy adaptation. Reconstruction accuracy measured by comparing preoperative to postoperative anatomic alignment was very good, with an average absolute difference across all patients of only 3.10 mm. Inter-rater reliability between measurements was high with an average 0.98 intraclass correlation coefficient.

conclusionsWe present a novel method for measuring mandibular reconstruction accuracy through the use of the maxilla as the anatomic landmark. Furthermore, our profile of patients who underwent segmental mandibulectomy and reconstruction with the assistance of in-house produced 3D printed patient-specific models appears to result in suitable anatomic alignment of the reconstructed mandible and produce good clinical outcomes.

Indexed as

CAD/CAM modelsMandiblePoint of careReconstruction accuracySegmental mandibulectomy

Identifiers

PMID40591117
PMCPMC12211303

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.