ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2026
Complications After Patient-specific Implants for Facial Contouring and Augmentation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Patient-specific implants (PSIs) made from titanium (Ti) or polyetheretherketone (PEEK) are increasingly used for craniofacial contouring and reconstruction. We compared clinical outcomes between Ti and PEEK PSIs. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library for clinical studies of Ti and PEEK PSIs used for facial reconstruction/augmentation. Single-arm random-effects meta-analyses estimated pooled event rates, and subgroup tests compared materials. Primary outcomes were overall complications, infection, explantation, and healing-related issues. Secondary outcomes were placement accuracy and patient satisfaction. This review followed PRISMA 2020 (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) and MOOSE (Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) guidelines. Results: Twenty-nine studies comprising 392 patients and 543 implants (447 PEEK; 96 Ti) met the inclusion criteria. Pooled overall complication rates were 6.94% (95% confidence interval 2.38-12.98) for PEEK and 4.77% (95% confidence interval 0.05-13.66) for Ti. Infection occurred in 1.51% versus 0.33%, implant removal in 0.73% versus 0.00%, and healing-related issues in 2.61% versus 2.54% (PEEK versus Ti). Under random-effects, between-material subgroup tests were nonsignificant for overall complications ( Conclusions: Ti and PEEK PSIs demonstrate low complication rates with no clear material superiority once between-study variability is considered. Material selection should be individualized to the anatomical site, imaging needs, and revision plans. Prospective, standardized, head-to-head studies with longer follow-up are needed.
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.