ReviewOral and maxillofacial surgery2026
Beyond reconstruction: minimally invasive aesthetic and regenerative medicine in postoperative oral and maxillofacial surgery.
Review in Oral and maxillofacial 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeOral and maxillofacial reconstruction restores anatomical continuity and function after tumor resection, trauma and congenital deformity, yet patients frequently remain affected by fibrosis, scar tethering, impaired oral competence, asymmetry and altered dynamic facial function. These deficits can impair quality of life, social interaction and body image. Conventional revision surgery carries additional morbidity, and minimally invasive options have emerged as a postoperative adjunct. This article reviews how minimally invasive aesthetic and regenerative medicine can extend reconstructive rehabilitation in oral and maxillofacial surgery.
methodsCurrent biological and clinical evidence for polynucleotides (PN), hyaluronic acid (HA) and botulinum toxin A (BoNT-A) was reviewed and integrated with selected, non-consecutive illustrative cases from a dedicated aesthetic and regenerative consultation in an academic oral and maxillofacial surgery department. Clinical applications were illustrated across four patient categories: oncological, congenital, trauma/scar and aesthetic-functional sequelae after surgery.
resultsIn illustrative cases from different categories, a staged approach of tissue conditioning, structural restoration and dynamic neuromodulation was associated with clinically observed and patient-reported improvements in scar pliability, tissue gliding, oral competence, dynamic symmetry and quality of life. PN were used primarily for regenerative tissue conditioning, HA for reversible structural restoration, and BoNT-A to modulate muscular imbalance and pathological wound tension. As interventions were frequently combined and no validated outcome measures or controls were used, these observations are hypothesis-generating.
conclusionMinimally invasive regenerative and aesthetic treatment may serve as a functional extension of reconstruction rather than a cosmetic adjunct. The central concept is not volumisation, but restoration of tissue quality, dynamic balance and facial function. Prospective studies using validated functional, scar and patient-reported outcome measures are required to define its role in modern oral and maxillofacial surgery.
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.