ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2026
Strategies for Malar Implant Placement: A Review of Access, Planning, and Outcomes.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 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
Background: The absence of standardized planning and placement strategies for malar implants contributes to variable aesthetic outcomes. Methods: A systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 guidelines searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Google Scholar for clinical studies on aesthetic malar implantation. Surgical access, implant positioning, planning methods, and complications were extracted. Results: Fifteen studies including 796 patients were analyzed. Intraoral (n = 370) and preauricular (n = 350) approaches were most common, followed by subciliary (n = 54) and endonasal (n = 20). Intraoral access showed higher infection rates (2.0%), revisions (4.3%), removals (2.0%), and malposition (1.3%). Preauricular access was associated with asymmetry (20.3%) and contour irregularities. Subciliary and endonasal approaches showed few reported complications. Most implants were placed over the anterolateral zygoma to enhance malar projection. Only 3 studies used patient-specific implants, and 6 incorporated computed tomography or 3-dimensional planning. Conclusions: Intraoral access carries a higher infection risk. Targeting the central malar eminence may optimize projection while avoiding lateral overcorrection. Broader use of patient-specific implants and image-guided planning may improve precision and aesthetic outcomes.
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.