Oral and maxillofacial surgery · 2025
Efficacy of absorbable vs. non-absorbable patient-specific, 3D-printed implants for the treatment of facial bone fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
СтатьяСистематический обзорМетаанализСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
DiPalma Anthony D, Zia Hasan, Goodwin Brandon, Al-Shehab Usmaan, Bharadia Anusha, Goldfarb Jared
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: This systematic review and meta-analysis compares the efficacy and complication rate of absorbable versus non-absorbable 3D-printed, patient-customized, maxillofacial implants in facial trauma patients.
DATA SOURCES: A comprehensive search of four databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane) was conducted.
METHODS: A systematic review and single-proportion meta-analysis was conducted employing PRISMA guidelines. A comprehensive search of four databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane) yielded a total of 4087 results. After removing duplicates, 16 articles underwent full-text analysis, with 13 meeting the inclusion criteria. The inclusion focused on primary clinical data involving 3D-printed, patient-specific implants for facial bone fracture restorations. Exclusion criteria removed studies without full text, ongoing studies, animal studies, and studies not utilizing CAD/CAM for their implants.
RESULTS: A total of 114 patients underwent insertion of 3D-printed implants. Patients receiving non-absorbable implants had a success rate of 84% (95% CI: 74-91), with complications in 12 patients. Patients receiving absorbable implants achieved a 100% success rate (95% CI: 0-100), with zero complications.
CONCLUSION: The study suggests absorbable 3D-printed implants provide superior results with fewer complications compared to non-absorbable 3D-printed implants for the treatment of facial fractures.
CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
DATA SOURCES: A comprehensive search of four databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane) was conducted.
METHODS: A systematic review and single-proportion meta-analysis was conducted employing PRISMA guidelines. A comprehensive search of four databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane) yielded a total of 4087 results. After removing duplicates, 16 articles underwent full-text analysis, with 13 meeting the inclusion criteria. The inclusion focused on primary clinical data involving 3D-printed, patient-specific implants for facial bone fracture restorations. Exclusion criteria removed studies without full text, ongoing studies, animal studies, and studies not utilizing CAD/CAM for their implants.
RESULTS: A total of 114 patients underwent insertion of 3D-printed implants. Patients receiving non-absorbable implants had a success rate of 84% (95% CI: 74-91), with complications in 12 patients. Patients receiving absorbable implants achieved a 100% success rate (95% CI: 0-100), with zero complications.
CONCLUSION: The study suggests absorbable 3D-printed implants provide superior results with fewer complications compared to non-absorbable 3D-printed implants for the treatment of facial fractures.
CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.