ArticleAesthetic plastic surgery2026
A Novel Design Strategy for Customized Polyetheretherketone Implants in Paranasal Augmentation Through Surgeon-Engineer Collaboration.
Article in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundParanasal concavity, particularly prevalent in East Asian females, contributes to a prematurely aged facial profile. The paranasal augmentation with customized polyetheretherketone (PEEK) implants offers an effective solution for this aesthetic concern. However, conventional design strategies often encounter challenges in bridging the knowledge gap between surgical requirements and engineering implementation, which may result in unsatisfactory aesthetic outcomes. The optimized interdisciplinary approach is required to integrate clinical and engineering expertise. Therefore, the present study aims to introduce a novel design strategy for customized PEEK implants in paranasal augmentation and to investigate clinical outcomes.
methodsThe present study enrolled 36 consecutive female patients with bilateral paranasal concavity. A surgeon-engineer collaboration workflow was established. The placement position, size, thickness, screw channel, and surface morphology of the implant were the key factors for implant design. Perioperative medical data were meticulously collected and analyzed. The outcomes were evaluated by objective quantitative measurements (maximum concavity depth of paranasal region, nasolabial angle, alar base width, nasorostral angle, philtrum length, and nasal columella length), and subjective questionnaire focused on satisfaction and design experience.
resultsThe mean operative duration was 55.28 ± 10.89 minutes with minimal intraoperative blood loss. The most common complication was transient perioral numbness. The wound nonunion and infection were not observed in all patients at final follow-up. Quantitative analysis demonstrated significant improvements in paranasal region: maximum concavity depth decreased from 5.45 ± 0.68 to 1.64 ± 0.53 mm (right side, p<0.001) and from 5.62 ± 0.70 to 1.53 ± 0.64 mm (left side, p<0.001). The nasolabial angle demonstrated a statistically significant increase from 90.49 ± 4.53° preoperatively to 95.33 ± 4.75° at final follow-up (p < 0.001). The subjective outcomes of patients revealed 83.33% satisfaction with aesthetic improvement and 72.22% enhanced self-confidence. A significant proportion of patients expressed high satisfaction with the design process for customized PEEK implants.
conclusionsThe novel design strategy through surgeon-engineer collaboration for customized PEEK implants demonstrated remarkable efficacy in paranasal concavity correction, achieving satisfactory aesthetic enhancement. The interdisciplinary approach highlights the critical integration of clinical expertise with engineering precision. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
Indexed as
Identifiers
41162797What 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.