ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2025
Are We Underestimating Zygomaticus Variability in Midface Surgery?
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2025. 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.
- Bone-Anchored CT Angiography Framework for In Vivo Assessment of Zygomaticus Major Morphology.Biomedicines · 2026Article
- Morphological classification of the temporalis muscle: anatomical, radiological, and surgical perspectives.Frontiers in surgery · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The zygomaticus major and minor (ZMa/ZMi) are key determinants of smile dynamics and midface contour, yet they exhibit substantial morphological variability-including bifid or multibellied bellies, accessory slips, and atypical insertions. Such variants can alter force vectors, fat-compartment boundaries, and SMAS planes, increasing the risk of asymmetry, contour irregularities, or "joker smile" following facelifts, fillers, thread lifts, and smile reconstruction. To our knowledge, this is the first review to integrate the Landfald classification of ZMa/ZMi variants with a standardized dynamic imaging-based workflow for aesthetic and reconstructive midface procedures. We conducted a narrative literature synthesis of anatomical and imaging studies. Bifid or multibellied variants have been reported in up to 35% of cadaveric specimens. We synthesize anatomical, biomechanical, and imaging evidence (MRI, dynamic US, 3D analysis) to propose a practical protocol: (1) focused history and dynamic examination, (2) US/EMG mapping of contraction vectors, (3) optional high-resolution MRI for complex cases, and (4) individualized adjustment of surgical vectors, injection planes, and dosing. Procedure-specific adaptations are outlined for deep-plane releases, thread-lift trajectories, filler depth selection, and muscle-transfer orientation. We emphasize that standardizing preoperative dynamic mapping and adopting a "patient-specific mimetic profile" can enhance safety, predictability, and preservation of authentic expression, ultimately improving patient satisfaction across diverse midface interventions.
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.