ReviewMaxillofacial plastic and reconstructive surgery2025
Patient-specific implants for intraoral and maxillofacial reconstruction: a scoping review on customization and fabrication methods.
Review in Maxillofacial plastic and reconstructive 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.
- Artificial Intelligence and Digital Workflow in Craniofacial Bone Tissue Engineering: From Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) to Personalized Bioceramic Implants.Dentistry journal · 2026Review
- Clinical outcomes and mechanical evaluation of patient-specific mandibular reconstruction following tumor resection: a retrospective study with finite element analysis.World journal of surgical oncology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMaxillofacial defects compromise both function and aesthetics, posing significant challenges in rehabilitation. The advent of digital technologies has enabled the development of patient-specific implants (PSIs), providing individualized solutions that enhance clinical outcomes. MAIN BODY: This scoping review, conducted following the PRISMA-ScR protocol, explored literature published between January 2015 and January 2025 across PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and COCHRANE databases using the PCC framework. Eligible studies included original research, case reports, randomized and non-randomized trials, and finite element analyses addressing intraoral rehabilitation with PSIs. Evidence highlights that CAD/CAM and 3D printing facilitate the fabrication of anatomically precise, patient-matched implants. These technologies contribute to reduced surgical time, high implant survival, improved mastication, and enhanced speech outcomes, while complication rates remain low. Comparative findings suggest no major differences in fit or longevity between milled and printed PSIs. Furthermore, ongoing innovations such as bioprinting and tissue engineering offer potential pathways toward biologically integrated maxillofacial solutions.
conclusionPSIs represent a promising modality in maxillofacial prosthetic rehabilitation. Optimizing outcomes requires continued research into advanced materials and digital fabrication techniques to expand their clinical scope.
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.