ArticleHead & face medicine2025
Comparison of the accuracy between guided and freehand placement of periorbital implants-a cadaveric split-face study.
Article in Head & face medicine, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOrbital exenteration (exenteratio orbitae) is a disfiguring procedure performed with tumor resection. Rapid realization of an implant-retained craniofacial prosthesis with a secure fit for an active life is essential to restore quality of life. Osseointegrated implants are commonly used for maxillofacial rehabilitation. The precise positioning of these implants is more difficult in cases of reduced bone availability, but it enables anaplastologists to achieve an unobtrusive restoration.
methodsAfter computed tomography (CT) scans of 13 cadaver heads, 104 craniomaxillofacial (CMF) implants were digitally planned. Using a split-face study design, one periorbital side was treated with customized surgical guides and one side was operated freehand. The digital evaluation of position, axis, and insertion depth compared to the digital planning was conducted for 78 periorbital implants using digital evaluation of a postoperative CT scan to measure the linear and angular deviation from preoperative planning.
resultsThe linear deviation in 3D (p = 0.0105), drilling depth (p = 0.0013), and angular deviation (p = 0.0004) were significantly greater in the freehand group than in the guided computer-assisted implant surgery (CAIS) group.
conclusionDigital planning enables the available bone support to be preoperatively estimated. CAIS with surgical guides offers significantly more accurate results for CMF implant placement than a freehand transfer of digital planning. Guided CAIS requires a larger surgical approach and therefore fails to achieve the goal of a minimally invasive technique.
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.