ArticleBrazilian dental journal2024
Three-dimensional printed bioresorbable scaffold for maxillofacial bone reconstruction: A Scoping Review.
Article in Brazilian dental journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- 3D-Printed and Biofabricated Scaffolds for Osteoporotic Bone Defect Repair: Mechanical Adaptation, Redox Control, Senescence Modulation and Osteoimmunomodulation.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Three-Dimensional Printing and Personalized Bioceramic Scaffolds for Dental and Maxillofacial Applications: A Narrative Review.Dentistry journal · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This scoping review aimed to provide an overview of current advancements in virtual planning and custom-made 3D-printed bioresorbable scaffolds, and to evaluate their clinical outcomes in maxillofacial reconstructive surgeries. Electronic searches of PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases were conducted for publications up to June 2024. Included in the review were reports evaluating patients who underwent maxillofacial bone defect reconstruction using virtual planning and custom-made 3D-printed bioresorbable scaffolds. Data on postoperative complications, new bone formation, scaffold resorption, dental implant success/survival, and patient satisfaction were collected. The electronic search found 5799 results (3438 unique citations). A total of 54 studies were evaluated for full-text reading, of which 41 were excluded based on the inclusion criteria. Thirteen studies (6 case reports, 5 case series, one prospective clinical study and one randomized clinical trial) were included. These studies assessed the effectiveness of 3D-printed scaffolds in reconstructing maxillofacial defects, bone augmentation for dental implant placement, and regeneration of periosseous defects. Most of the 3D-printed scaffolds were biocompatible and did not cause local or systemic adverse events. However, some postoperative complications were reported, including graft exposure, wound dehiscence, and local infection. Overall, the 3D-printed scaffolds demonstrated favorable dimensional compatibility with deformities, provided durable support, promoted bone formation, achieved adequate bone union with host bone tissues, and supported dental implant placement without additional guided bone regeneration. In conclusion, custom-made 3D-printed bioresorbable scaffolds, guided by virtual planning, present a promising option for maxillofacial reconstruction due to their accuracy, osteoconductivity, and biocompatible properties.
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.