ReviewJournal of maxillofacial and oral surgery2025
Patient-Specific Implants in Maxillo-Facial Reconstruction: Current Practices and Way Forward-An Overview of Systematic Reviews.
Review in Journal of maxillofacial and oral surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mimicking Alveolar Lung Structures with Lattice Designs.Polymers · 2025Article
- Multistage composite midface reconstruction after gunshot injury: A case report.International journal of surgery case reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Maxillofacial reconstruction has undergone a paradigm shift from conventional to digital workflows. The integration of Three Dimensional (3D) technology and patient-specific implants (PSIs) has revolutionized surgical planning and execution, particularly in complex procedures. This overview of systematic review (SR) aims to provide healthcare professionals with a comprehensive, evidence-based resource on current practices and future perspectives of maxillofacial reconstruction using 3D technology and PSIs. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from inception 30th September 2023, using keywords such as "3D printing," "patient-specific implants," "maxillofacial reconstruction," and related terms. The search included PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Cochrane databases. Only SRs focusing on maxillofacial reconstruction with 3D technology were included. Article quality was assessed using the AMSTAR (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews) tool and Glenny et al. checklists. Results: Out of 327 search results, fourteen articles met the inclusion criteria. Most reviews focused on reconstructing orbital, nasal, maxillary, mandibular, and temporomandibular joint defects. Notably, only one Cochrane review was identified, indicating a lack of high-quality randomized or cohort studies. Furthermore, only three reviews had a registered protocol. Conclusion: While the literature supports the use of PSIs and 3D technology in maxillofacial reconstruction, the evidence quality remains moderate to poor. The heterogeneity of the data across studies has limited the ability to perform a meta-analysis. SRs emphasize the need for careful ethical considerations when using medical devices like PSIs. Although advanced technologies enhance surgical outcomes, they come with a steep learning curve and require rigorous clinical validation.
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.