ArticleCraniomaxillofacial trauma & reconstruction2026
Over a Decade of Maxillofacial PEEK Patient-Specific Innovation: A Retrospective Review of the Evolution from In-House Craft to Virtual Design and Remote Manufacturing.
Article in Craniomaxillofacial trauma & reconstruction, 2026. 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.
- MaxI-Net: A 3D AI Framework for CBCT-Based Maxillofacial Defect Reconstruction and Patient-Specific Implant Generation with Biomechanical Validation.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Maxillofacial skeletal reconstruction presents significant challenges due to anatomical complexity, functional requirements, and aesthetic demands. Traditional materials such as titanium and autogenous bone grafts have limitations, prompting interest in Polyetheretherketone (PEEK), a versatile thermoplastic polymer with advantages like biocompatibility, radiolucency, and elasticity similar to human bone. This multi-year case series evaluates the clinical outcomes of PEEK implants used in 56 cases on 53 patients for maxillofacial reconstruction, primarily for trauma (44 patients) and deformity (9 patients). PEEK implants were applied to various facial regions including the orbit, zygoma, mandible, and maxilla. The majority of surgeries utilised virtual surgical planning. Patient-specific implants were fabricated using 3D imaging technologies, allowing customisation for optimal fit and functionality. The mean patient age was 37 years with a split of 37 to 16 females. Some complications were noted such as infection and paraesthesia. However, the majority of patients experienced positive outcomes. The findings support PEEK implants as a safe, effective, and adaptable material for maxillofacial surgery, with potential for further advancements in material properties and surgical technologies to improve long-term outcomes.
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.