ReviewCureus2026
Managing Orbital Floor Fractures With Three-Dimensional (3D)-Printed Surgical Guides: A Narrative Review.
Review in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Orbital floor fractures are a common consequence of maxillofacial trauma and can result in significant functional and esthetic morbidity, including diplopia, enophthalmos, and impaired ocular motility if not accurately reconstructed. Conventional freehand orbital floor reconstruction relies heavily on intraoperative judgment and visual estimation, which may compromise precision, particularly in complex defects involving posterior orbital anatomy. The objective of this review is to evaluate the clinical effectiveness, accuracy, and feasibility of three-dimensional (3D)-printed patient-specific surgical guides in the management of orbital floor fractures. A comprehensive literature review was conducted using major electronic databases to identify prospective and comparative clinical studies assessing guide-assisted orbital reconstruction, with an emphasis on surgical accuracy, functional outcomes, complication rates, and workflow efficiency. The reviewed evidence demonstrates that 3D-printed surgical guides enable more precise implant positioning and improved restoration of orbital volume by translating virtual preoperative planning into reproducible intraoperative execution. Radiological assessments consistently show reduced discrepancies between reconstructed and contralateral orbits, while clinical outcomes indicate lower rates of postoperative diplopia, enophthalmos, and need for revision surgery compared with conventional techniques. 3D-printed surgical guides represent a promising adjunct in orbital floor fracture management, offering enhanced precision, predictability, and improved functional and esthetic outcomes, although further standardized and cost-effectiveness studies are warranted.
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.