ArticleMaxillofacial plastic and reconstructive surgery2025
Polyetheretherketone for craniomaxillofacial defects: cases report, evaluation of patients' satisfaction and a systematic literature review.
Article 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.
- Preclinical evaluation of patient-specific 3D-printed PDLLA/SrHAp implants in a minipig segmental mandibular defect model.Materials today. Bio · 2026Article
- Alternating Shear Force of Respiration Regulates Cell Interactions of Fibroblasts and Macrophages to Promote Soft Tissue Integration of Chest Wall Polyetheretherketone Implants.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCraniomaxillofacial reconstruction poses significant clinical challenges due to the complexity of the anatomy and the varied causes of defects. Selecting the optimal implant material remains a crucial factor in achieving successful functional and aesthetic outcomes. This study combined a systematic review and a retrospective case series conducted at the Hospital 5, Almaty, Kazakhstan. The sample consisted of 52 patients who underwent craniomaxillofacial reconstruction between 2021 and 2024, receiving either PEEK, titanium, PMMA or silicone implants. Following the surgical procedures, patients were invited to participate in an online survey to evaluate their satisfaction with long-term outcomes.
resultsPEEK implants demonstrated the complication rate at 22.2%, attributable only to hematoma. Titanium implants exhibited the complication rate-22.7%, with cases of asymmetry and diplopia (4.5%), exposure (9.1%), hematoma (4.5%) and infection with rejection (9.1%). Aesthetic outcome scores, measured by the ANA scale, varied across materials. PEEK implants achieved the highest mean ANA rating with 8.86 (SD = 0.35; 8.25-9.25), showing a significant difference over PMMA, silicone and titanium.
conclusionsPEEK implants demonstrated promising clinical and aesthetic outcomes in craniomaxillofacial reconstruction. However, material selection should be personalised, considering defect location, soft tissue coverage to optimise results.
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.