ReviewCureus2025
Effectiveness of Finite Element Modelling in Maxillofacial Surgery: A Review of Evidence from Saudi Arabia.
Review in Cureus, 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
Finite Element Analysis (FEA) is a biomechanical simulation tool in surgical planning, but its adoption and methodological quality vary geographically, as a focused analysis of its application in Saudi Arabia is lacking. This review synthesized and evaluated the methodological rigor, biomechanical insights, and translational relevance of Saudi-based studies employing FEA in maxillofacial surgery. A systematic review was conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and a registered International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) protocol. Databases were searched for studies with affiliation to Saudi Arabia. Methodological quality and risk of bias were assessed using a bespoke tool based on the FEA best practice. Certainty of evidence was evaluated using a modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Three eligible studies covered diverse applications, including mandibular reconstruction, orthognathic surgery, and cranioplasty. Quality assessment revealed methodological heterogeneity, as all studies used patient-specific or anatomically accurate models, but critical best practices have been inconsistently applied. Only one study reported a mesh convergence analysis, while none of the studies performed an experimental validation of their FEA biomechanical predictions. The overall risk of bias was rated moderate to high. Certainty of evidence for any biomechanical outcome was very low according to GRADE. Saudi-based FEA research on maxillofacial surgery is sparse and methodologically nascent. Although technical capabilities in model generation exist, critical gaps in numerical verification (mesh convergence) and experimental validation limit the reliability and translational potential of the findings, underscoring the need to establish standardized, high-quality research protocols to advance data-driven surgical planning in Saudi Arabia.
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.