Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41993669›Full record

ReviewTaiwan journal of ophthalmology

Patient-specific implants for orbital fracture surgery.

Min Kyu Yang, Ho-Seok Sa

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Taiwan journal of ophthalmology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Min Kyu YangDepartment of Ophthalmology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Ho-Seok SaDepartment of Ophthalmology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Orbital wall fractures are among the most common maxillofacial injuries and require precise reconstruction to restore orbital volume, prevent diplopia, and avoid long-term sequelae such as enophthalmos or facial asymmetry. Traditional reconstruction techniques have relied on autologous grafts and preformed alloplastic implants; however, these approaches are limited by intraoperative variability, imprecise contour restoration, and increased operative time. Over the past decade, the emergence of patient-specific implants (PSIs), designed through advanced three-dimensional (3D) imaging, computer-aided design, and computer-aided manufacturing, has transformed the field of orbital reconstruction. PSIs allow highly accurate anatomical restoration, reduce intraoperative manipulation, and improve clinical outcomes. This review provides a comprehensive overview of the evolution of orbital fracture reconstruction, design and fabrication principles of PSIs, clinical evidence supporting their use, limitations, and future directions, including bioactive materials, artificial intelligence-driven design, and point-of-care 3D printing.

Indexed as

Orbital fractureorbital implantpatient-specific modelingsurgery

Identifiers

PMID41993669
PMCPMC13082806

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.