ArticleIndian journal of otolaryngology and head and neck surgery : official publication of the Association of Otolaryngologists of India2025
CAD/CAM and Maxillary Obturators in Head and Neck Cancer Patients: A Review.
Article in Indian journal of otolaryngology and head and neck surgery : official publication of the Association of Otolaryngologists of India, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Obturator prostheses and removable prostheses still represent a valid option in head and neck cancer patients. The aim of the present article is to briefly review the current literature about the use of a digital workflow in the intraoral prosthetic rehabilitation of head and neck cancer patients. Methods: The review included articles in English published from January 2010 to February 2023. Articles regarding patients who had undergone head and neck cancer treatment and intraoral prosthetic rehabilitation by a CAD-CAM techniques in at least 1 of the prosthetic treatment stages (scanning, design, and/or fabrication) were included. Results: Nineteen articles with 72 described patients met the inclusion criteria and were included. Three types of removable prosthetic treatments were reported: 52 maxillary obturators, 19 provisional maxillary obturators, and 1 maxillary complete denture. As for 3-dimensional image capture, the most common method was intraoral scanner, followed by conventional CT scan. As for prosthetic procedures, all treatments incorporated at least a digital workflow in 1 of the stages, either in design or fabrication. Concerning the CAM phase, definitive cast printing was performed in 69 patients. Only 3 patient was rehabilitated by using a completely digital workflow. Conclusions: A completely digital workflow was rarely used in the intraoral prosthetic rehabilitation of patients with head and neck cancer. The reduced laboratory working time, the avoidance of the risk of aspiration of impression materials, and the possibility of performing an adequate digital impression in spite of the trismus are important advantages associated with the digital workflow.
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.