ArticleJournal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences2025
Clinical Outcomes of Different Bone Grafting Materials in Maxillofacial Reconstruction: An Original Research.
Article in Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study investigates the clinical outcomes of various bone grafting materials used in maxillofacial reconstruction, focusing on their effectiveness, biocompatibility, and complications. Materials and Methods: A prospective cohort of 150 patients undergoing maxillofacial reconstruction was analyzed. The cohort was divided based on the use of autogenous, allograft, and synthetic materials. Postoperative outcomes were measured over six months. Results: Autogenous grafts exhibited the highest graft integration rates (95%) but were associated with increased donor-site morbidity. Allografts had moderate success (85%) with minimal complications. Synthetic materials demonstrated the lowest integration rates (75%) but had the advantage of unlimited supply and reduced complications. Conclusion: Each material offers unique benefits, with selection tailored to clinical needs. Autogenous grafts remain the gold standard, while synthetic materials provide a viable alternative for specific indications.
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.