ArticleOral oncology2020
A prospective parallel design study testing non-inferiority of customized oral stents made using 3D printing or manually fabricated methods.
Article in Oral oncology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Autostent: a semi-automated approach to designing customized 3D-printed oral radiation stents for patients with head and neck cancer.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2025Observational
- Protecting organs-at-risk in cancer therapies through temporary organ displacement: a comprehensive review.Oncology reviews · 2025Review
- ACR-ARS Practice Parameter for the Performance of Proton Beam Therapy.International journal of particle therapy · 2024Article
- Article
- Protective and positioning devices in maxillofacial prosthodontics and radiotherapy: Overview.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
background and purposeCustomized mouth-opening-tongue-depressing-stents (MOTDs) may reduce toxicity in patients with head and neck cancers (HNC) receiving radiotherapy (RT). However, making MOTDs requires substantial resources, which limits their utilization. Previously, we described a workflow for fabricating customized 3D-printed MOTDs. This study reports the results of a prospective trial testing the non-inferiority of 3D-printed to standard and commercially-available (TruGuard) MOTDs as measured by patient reported outcomes (PROs). MATERIALS AND
methodsPROs were collected at 3 time points: (t1) simulation, (t2) prior to RT, (t3) between fractions 15-25 of RT. Study participants received a 3D-printed MOTDs (t1, t2, t3), a wax-pattern (t1), an acrylic-MOTDs (t2, t3) and an optional TruGuard (t1, t2, t3). Patients inserted the stents for 5-10 min and completed a PRO-questionnaire covering ease-of-insertion and removal, gagging, jaw-pain, roughness and stability. Inter-incisal opening and tongue-displacement were recorded. With 39 patients, we estimated 90% power to detect a non-inferiority margin of 2 at a significance level of 0.025. Matched pairs and t-test were used for statistics.
results41 patients were evaluable. The 3D-printed MOTDs achieved a significantly better overall PRO score compared to the wax-stent (p = 0.0007) and standard-stent (p = 0.0002), but was not significantly different from the TruGuard (p = 0.41). There was no difference between 3D-printed and standard MOTDs in terms of inter-incisal opening (p = 0.4) and position reproducibility (p = 0.98). The average 3D-printed MOTDs turn-around time was 8 vs 48 h for the standard-stent.
conclusions3D-printed stents demonstrated non-inferior PROs compared to TruGuard and standard-stents. Our 3D-printing process may expand utilization of MOTDs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.