ArticleScientific reports2026
Automated Global Positioning Layout (GPL) for accuracy assessment in CAD-CAM mandibular reconstruction - Method validation.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
The lack of a standardized methodology complicates accuracy assessment in computer-assisted mandibular reconstruction. Existing landmark-based methods are susceptible to operator variability, while surface-based comparisons can mask local deviations. This study validates a novel, automated protocol, the Global Positioning Layout (GPL), to quantify the 3D discrepancy between the virtual surgical plan and the postoperative outcome, by comparing its performance and reliability against Methods A and B. A retrospective cohort of 17 patients was analysed, with three operators performing all measurements on two occasions. The GPL method demonstrated complete reproducibility, with no inter- or intra-operator variability, providing a detailed, spatially-oriented assessment of deviations. In contrast, the landmark-based method showed poor reproducibility and systematic bias and was often inapplicable due to the absence of landmarks after resection. The surface-based method, while objective for its mean error metric, was operator-dependent for initial alignment and its non-directional output masked significant localized deviations. This study validates GPL as a robust and fully reproducible tool that overcomes the critical limitations of established techniques. The GPL method provides a strong foundation for a standardized protocol, essential for the reliable comparison of surgical outcomes, refinement of surgical techniques, and improvement of long-term patient 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.