ArticleActa medica Philippina2025
Design of a Novel, Modular, Mouth Retractor: A Concept Testing Study.
Article in Acta medica Philippina, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objectives: Mouth retractors are essential in ensuring efficient yet safe exposure of the oral cavity and oropharynx. However, when applied improperly or haphazardly, retractors can cause tissue injuries and compromise patient safety. In addition, there are gaps in the usability of existing designs. This study aimed to identify the issues encountered by otorhinolaryngology surgeons in the use of commercially available mouth retractors, design and fabricate an improved retractor, and explore the use of additive manufacturing (popularly known as 3D printing) for retractor prototyping. Methods: The study used the United States Food and Drug Administration (US FDA) Design Control as its framework. End-user requirements from otorhinolaryngologists were collected through key informant interviews. Results were organized into a Design Input template which was used to guide the design and development process. Prototype designs were iteratively created using computer-aided design software and 3D printing. Once design specifications were satisfied, a beta prototype was fabricated and given to another cohort of otorhinolaryngologists. The participants assessed the usability of the beta prototype. System Usability Scale (SUS) was used to quantify participant's feedback. Results: Five designs were created in the course of the study. The final prototype was fabricated using a Stereolithography (SLA) 3D printer. Several features were developed to address user requirements. The primary modification was to make the retractor modular to facilitate easier and shorter mounting and assembly. Gingival injury was addressed with the replacement of the maxillary alveolus hook with support bars. Five participants evaluated the beta prototype which received a mean SUS score of 75, well above the 50 Conclusion: This study demonstrates the applicability of the US FDA Design Control Process in the local setting to improve the mouth retractor design. Clinical and ergonomic issues were identified and design solutions were proposed and some have been implemented in a low-fidelity prototype. Results of the small-scale usability test suggest that the present form factor can be the basis for further iterations. Future studies can implement the proposed features to address other clinical and ergonomic needs.
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.