ArticleMaedica2026
Comparative Efficacy of Diced Cartilage Versus Diced Bone for Correcting Dorsal Nasal Irregularities: a Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial.
Article in Maedica, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Rhinoplasty is among the most technically demanding procedures in plastic surgery. Aesthetic deformities of the nasal dorsum substantially affect facial appearance. Various graft materials have been used to correct these irregularities. This study aimed to compare the short-term efficacy of diced cartilage and diced bone grafts in correcting dorsal nasal irregularities. Methods: This pilot randomized clinical trial included 60 patients undergoing primary rhinoplasty. The patients were randomly assigned into two equal groups using permuted-block randomization with a block size of 4. In the first group, diced septal cartilage was used for dorsal augmentation; in the second group, diced bone obtained from hump resection and bony spurs along the septal floor was used. Follow-up assessments were performed at one week, one month and three months postoperatively. Short-term efficacy was evaluated by palpation and photographic documentation. At three months, patient satisfaction with nasal appearance was measured using a 10-cm visual analog scale (VAS). All participants also completed the Standardized Cosmesis and Health Nasal Outcomes Survey (SCHNOS). Results: Patients' mean age was 26.98 ± 3.75 years. Of the 60 participants, 54 (90%) were women and six (10%) men. According to the surgeon's assessment, both graft types were effective in all cases during the three-month follow-up period. The mean VAS satisfaction score was 8.97 ± 1.77 overall, with mean scores of 8.97 ± 1.88 in the diced bone group and 9.00 ± 1.66 in the diced cartilage group. Aesthetic satisfaction was similar in the two groups, with no statistically significant difference (P = 0.879). For the nasal obstruction domain (items 1-4) and the aesthetic domain (items 5-10), most patients in both groups selected either "no problem" or "a very minor problem." Conclusion: Both diced cartilage and diced bone demonstrated satisfactory short-term outcomes for dorsal nasal augmentation, with no significant difference in patient satisfaction at three months. Longer follow-up is needed to assess their long-term stability and graft behavior.
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.