ArticleFrontiers in surgery2026
Integrated polyetheretherketone patient-specific implants for multi-subunit midface concavity: a retrospective case series.
Article in Frontiers in surgery, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Correction of multi-subunit midface concavity in patients without malocclusion remains challenging when multiple prefabricated implants are used, because implant transitions may be irregular and dissection around the infraorbital foramen is technically demanding. This study evaluated the feasibility, safety, and short-term aesthetic outcomes of integrated polyetheretherketone patient-specific implants designed using computer-aided design and manufacturing technology. Methods: This retrospective case series screened consecutive adults treated with bilateral integrated PEEK patient-specific implants for multi-subunit midface concavity. Eligible patients had normal or essentially normal occlusion, clinical and CT-based moderate-to-severe concavity involving at least two adjacent subunits, adequate soft-tissue coverage, and completed postoperative follow-up. Demographic, implant-planning, satisfaction, and adverse-event data were reviewed. The primary outcome was late postoperative patient-reported aesthetic satisfaction assessed using a modified GAIS-derived 5-point scale. Early (10-30 days) and late (>90 days) satisfaction scores were compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Results: Sixty-two implants were placed in 31 patients. The mean follow-up was 8.3 ± 2.1 months. Implant placement was successful in all cases, and no intraoperative reshaping was required. Late postoperative satisfaction scores were significantly higher than early postoperative scores ( Conclusion: Integrated polyetheretherketone patient-specific implants appear to be a feasible option for selected patients with multi-subunit midface concavity and normal or essentially normal occlusion. The integrated patient-specific design may support customized skeletal augmentation across adjacent midfacial subunits and individualized aesthetic planning. Further studies with longer follow-up, comparative controls, and objective three-dimensional outcome assessment 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.