ArticleBMC oral health2026
Accuracy of PSI-based hybrid workflow using a temporary intermediate splint versus conventional splint-based maxillary positioning in orthognathic surgery: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in BMC oral health, 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
backgroundThis retrospective cohort study, adhering to STROBE guidelines, compared the accuracy of maxillary positioning achieved with a patient-specific implant (PSI)-based hybrid workflow, which utilised a temporary intermediate splint to identify and remove posterior bony interferences before definitive splintless PSI fixation, to conventional splint-based positioning using stock titanium osteosynthesis plates in orthognathic surgery. Translational and rotational movement deviations from the virtual surgical plan were assessed.
methodsTwenty-six patients who underwent non-segmental Le Fort I osteotomy between January 2020 and June 2023 were included. Eleven patients received the PSI-based hybrid workflow, while 15 patients underwent conventional splint-based positioning. Group allocation was based on the logistical feasibility of PSI planning and manufacturing rather than randomisation. Pre- and postoperative 3D images were superimposed using IPS® Case Designer software (KLS Martin) to quantify deviations in three translational and three rotational axes. Between-group comparisons were conducted using unpaired t-tests and two-way ANOVA, and correlations were assessed using Pearson's coefficient.
resultsThe mean translational deviation was significantly lower in the PSI group compared to the control group (0.46 ± 0.33 mm vs 0.79 ± 0.58 mm; p = .0044), as was the mean rotational deviation (0.82° ± 0.91° vs 1.24° ± 0.85°; p = .0397). Significant differences were identified for vertical translation (p = .0162) and yaw rotation (p = .0205). Operating time did not differ significantly between groups (p = . 1739). In the PSI group, greater planned displacement showed a weak correlation with larger deviations, a relationship not observed in the control group.
conclusionsThe PSI-based hybrid workflow resulted in statistically greater positioning accuracy compared to conventional splint-based fixation. However, the absolute improvements (approximately 0.3 mm and 0.5°) were small, likely of limited clinical relevance, and were not associated with reduced operating times. Due to the retrospective, non-randomised design, small sample size, and use of a PSI-based hybrid protocol, these findings should be considered hypothesis-generating. Larger prospective studies evaluating fully splintless PSI workflows and patient-centred outcomes are recommended. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.