ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2025
3D-guided Mentoplasty: Advantages of the Technique and Morphometric Analysis.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: We aimed to describe a protocol and related surgical treatment for mentoplasty using virtual surgical planning (VSP) and piezosurgery. Methods: Twelve patients requiring mentoplasty underwent VSP based on preoperative computed tomography. Virtual osteotomy was defined and the bone fragment was repositioned. Cutting and repositioning guides were exported as STL files and created using a 3-dimensional (3D) printer with biocompatible material. Plates were preblended on the printed model. Postoperatively, morphometric analysis was performed by comparing the planned and postoperative 3D models: distance between the apex of the cusp of 43 and 33 and lower edge of the chin; distance between the lower edge of the right and left mental foramen and osteotomy; and distance between the mandibular lingual fossa and pogonion. Results: Six cutting guides were made composite and six were monobloc. The repositioning guides were all made monobloc. No adverse intraoperative events were observed. Postoperative transient hypoesthesia was reported in 1 case. The average distance between the planned and postoperative 3D models of the chin was recorded in translation (1.91 mm), rotation (right, 1.38 mm; left, 1.30 mm), and cranial-caudal repositioning (right, 1.39 mm; left, 1.23 mm). VSP and 3D printing have improved surgical precision and reproducibility; they help the surgeon decide the extent of chin movement and the most suitable type of surgical guide in advance. Conclusions: Mentoplasty using 3D-printed guides and piezosurgery is simple, accurate, and safe. The costs of guide production are reduced using 3D printers by approximately €400-€800 per case compared with industrial printers.
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.