ReviewCureus2025
3D-Printed Patient-Specific Implants in Maxillofacial Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Outcomes and Workflow Efficiency.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
Maxillofacial reconstruction presents unique surgical challenges. Traditional reconstructive techniques often lack precision and long-term reliability. The integration of patient-specific implants (PSIs) offers an enhanced anatomical fit and surgical efficiency. This study aimed to assess the use of 3D-printed PSIs in maxillofacial reconstruction. This study was conducted following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines, and the protocol was made available on PROSPERO. A comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, Ovid, CINAHL, WHO Virtual Health Library, and Google Scholar using keywords related to maxillofacial reconstruction and patient-specific 3D-printed implants. The quality of the eligible studies was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tool. A meta-analysis of implant integration outcomes was conducted using the Der Simonian-Laird random-effects model. Eight studies involving 183 patients were included in the review, with six studies contributing to the meta-analysis. The pooled implant success rate was 94.7% (95% CI: 91.4% to 98.0%), indicating excellent clinical outcomes with minimal heterogeneity (I² = 0%). Most studies employed virtual surgical planning and in-house 3D printing, which reduced the production time and costs. The reported complications were minor (e.g., seroma and infection), with no major implant failures. 3D-printed PSIs demonstrate high rates of clinical success, workflow efficiency, and radiographic accuracy in maxillofacial reconstruction procedures.
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.