ReviewDentistry journal2026
Artificial Intelligence and Digital Technologies in Orthognathic and Reconstructive Maxillofacial Surgery: Data Availability and Evidence Maturity.
Review in Dentistry journal, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Orthognathic and reconstructive maxillofacial surgery addresses severe dentofacial deformities, post-traumatic defects, and defects following oncologic resection. Across the pathway from preoperative imaging and virtual planning to soft-tissue prediction and intraoperative guidance, artificial intelligence and related digital technologies are increasingly being investigated to support decision-making, simulation, and plan transfer. This structured narrative review synthesizes evidence across that surgical pipeline and uses data availability as an organizing framework for interpreting evidence maturity. Predefined searches of PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus identified English-language peer-reviewed articles published from January 2018 to April 2026, supplemented by selected foundational studies. Within the literature reviewed, automated cephalometric and three-dimensional landmark detection has undergone the most extensive quantitative evaluation, supported by several systematic reviews and meta-analyses and by multicenter retrospective evaluations, including one study with independent external test sets. Artificial intelligence-assisted diagnosis, osteotomy planning, and virtual surgical planning show increasing technical capability, including low-millimeter reposition-vector prediction, although external validation and patient-centered outcomes remain limited. Soft-tissue prediction has advanced through deep learning and finite-element modeling, with selected studies reporting comparable geometric accuracy and substantially faster computation. In contrast, intraoperative augmented reality, navigation, and robot-assisted craniomaxillofacial surgery remain supported mainly by small clinical series, cadaveric studies, and preclinical validation. These technologies demonstrate plan-transfer feasibility in selected settings but do not yet establish broad clinical effectiveness or routine superiority over established workflows. Overall, evidence is more mature when datasets are structured, accessible, and standardized, and less mature when paired longitudinal imaging or intraoperative tracking data are sparse. This association should be interpreted as an organizing hypothesis rather than proof of causality.
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.