ReviewGalen medical journal2024
Biological and Synthetic Materials in Mandibular Reconstruction : Materials for Mandibular Reconstruction: Biological vs Synthetic.
Review in Galen medical journal, 2024. 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.
- From passive fillers to active implants: A 3D-printed trilayer piezoelectric scaffold recapitulating native bone hierarchy.Bioactive materials · 2027Article
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
Mandibular reconstruction is a critical surgical procedure necessary for restoring both function and aesthetics following trauma, tumor resection, or congenital defects. Over time, a variety of biological and synthetic materials have been developed to address the challenges of reconstructing the complex anatomy of the mandible. Biological materials, such as autografts, offer superior biocompatibility and osteogenic potential, but are limited by donor site morbidity and graft availability. Allografts and xenografts provide more accessible alternatives but are associated with higher risks of immune rejection and slower integration. In contrast, synthetic materials like titanium, PEEK (polyether ether ketone), and hydroxyapatite provide excellent mechanical strength and durability but often lack osteoinductive properties, requiring surface modifications to improve tissue integration.This review aims to provide a comprehensive analysis of the current materials used in mandibular reconstruction, comparing their biocompatibility, mechanical properties, osteoinductive potential, and clinical outcomes. Additionally, the review explores the growing role of composite materials that combine the strength of synthetics with the biological activity of natural tissues, as well as the advent of tissue engineering approaches that incorporate stem cell therapies and biomaterial scaffolds to promote bone regeneration. Emerging technologies such as 3D printing of custom-made implants and the application of nanotechnology for enhanced integration and infection control are also discussed as promising directions for future clinical applications. The findings highlight the need for continued research into optimizing biomaterial design and improving regenerative therapies to enhance patient-specific outcomes, reduce complications, and foster successful long-term integration of reconstructed mandibular structures. This review provides a roadmap for advancing both material science and clinical practice in the field of mandibular reconstruction.
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.