ArticleMaxillofacial plastic and reconstructive surgery2026
Ultra-low-dose cone-beam CT for cleft and craniofacial deformity surgery: radiation reduction and clinical applicability.
Article in Maxillofacial plastic and reconstructive surgery, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatients with cleft lip and palate and other craniofacial deformities often require repeated imaging during growth, making radiation reduction a priority. Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) offers lower radiation exposure than conventional CT, and ultra-low-dose (ULD) protocols may further reduce dose while maintaining clinical usability for surgical planning.
objectiveThis retrospective cohort study evaluated whether ULD CBCT provides comparable clinical usability to standard-dose CBCT for virtual surgical planning (VSP) and patient-specific implant (PSI) design in children and young adults undergoing orthognathic surgery for pediatric-onset craniofacial conditions.
methodsForty consecutive patients with pediatric-onset craniofacial anomalies (23 unilateral cleft lip and palate, 10 bilateral cleft lip and palate, and 7 other craniofacial deformities) who underwent PSI-based orthognathic surgery were included. The primary predictor was the CBCT protocol (standard-dose FACE vs. ULD JAW), selected in routine clinical practice according to institutional imaging protocols and case-specific assessment by the interpreting radiologist; no predefined allocation criteria were applied. Primary outcomes were intraoperative cutting guide fit and PSI fit, defined as stable anatomical seating without visible gap or rocking and no need for intraoperative modification. The secondary outcome was occlusal outcome (as planned/compromise/reoperated). Radiation exposure during the orthognathic surgical phase was quantified using dose–area product (DAP) and effective dose. Baseline comparability between protocol groups was explored using bivariate analyses and logistic regression.
resultsThe ULD protocol resulted in a significantly lower effective dose (40.3 µSv) compared with the standard-dose protocol (89.0 µSv, p < 0.001). No significant differences were observed in cutting guide fit (p = 0.450) or PSI fit (p = 0.238). In logistic regression analysis, age was associated with protocol allocation (p = 0.014), whereas sex, diagnosis, and procedure type were not. Thirty-seven of 40 PSIs were clinically acceptable intraoperatively. Both CBCT protocols were clinically adequate for PSI-based orthognathic planning.
conclusionULD CBCT provides sufficient image quality and intraoperative usability for VSP in cleft and dentofacial deformity surgery while significantly reducing radiation exposure. These findings support adherence to the ALARA principle in patients requiring repeated imaging.
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.