ReviewInternational journal of oral science2026
Next-generation craniomaxillofacial implants for reconstructive surgery: balancing biomechanics, biocompatibility, and bioactivity.
Review in International journal of oral science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Identification of an Optimal Gyroid Microarchitecture of 3D-Printed Hydroxyapatite Bone Substitutes for Vertical Bone Augmentation and Osteoconduction.Biomolecules · 2026Article
- PEEK in modern maxillofacial surgery: clinical applications, limitations and future opportunities.British dental journal · 2026Review
- Advances of piezoelectric biomaterials in bone defect repair: The role of direct and inverse piezoelectric effect.Journal of orthopaedic translation · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Next-generation craniomaxillofacial implants (CMFIs) are redefining personalized bone reconstruction by balancing and optimizing biomechanics, biocompatibility, and bioactivity-the "3Bs". This review highlights recent progress in implant design, material development, additive manufacturing, and preclinical evaluation. Emerging biomaterials, including bioresorbable polymers, magnesium alloys, and composites with bioactive ceramics, enable patient-specific solutions with improved safety and functionality. Triply periodic minimal surface (TPMS) architectures exemplify how structural design can enhance both mechanical performance and biological integration. Additive manufacturing technologies further allow the fabrication of geometrically complex, customized implants that meet individual anatomical and pathological needs. In parallel, multiscale evaluation techniques-from mechanical testing to in vitro and in vivo models-provide comprehensive insights into implant performance and safety. Looking ahead, the field is poised to benefit from several transformative trends: the development of smart and multifunctional biomaterials; AI-driven design frameworks that leverage patient-specific data and computational modeling; predictive additive manufacturing with real-time quality control; and advanced biological testing platforms for preclinical evaluation. Together, these advances form the foundation of a data-informed, translational pipeline from bench to bedside. Realizing the full potential of next-generation CMFIs will require close interdisciplinary collaboration across materials science, computational engineering, and clinical medicine.
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.