Skip to content

Study on the use of personalized molds versus traditional technique for the correction of skull defects

Comparison between in situ molded versus prototyped cranioplasty: a randomized clinical trial

Status
Recruiting
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Interventional
Source
REBEC
Registry ID
RBR-102gfznr
Enrollment
20
Registered
2026-04-13
Start date
2026-01-01
Completion date
Unknown
Last updated
2026-04-27

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Skull fractures Plastic Surgery Procedures Skull Fractures

Interventions

The study compares two surgical approaches for the reconstruction of cranial bone defects (cranioplasty) using polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) bone cement. Participants will be randomly allocated into o
s cranial defect to restore the anatomical contour. Group 2 (Intervention - Prototyped molding): Patients will undergo computer-assisted customized cranioplasty. Preoperative computed tomography (CT)
s skull. This is a two-arm, double-blind, randomized controlled clinical trial. Group 1: 10 participants. Group 2: 10 participants

Sponsors

Faculdade de Medicina de Botucatu/UNESP
Lead Sponsor
Faculdade de Medicina de Botucatu/UNESP
Collaborator

Eligibility

Age
18 Years to No maximum

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: adult patients, both gender, above 18 years old, with cranial bone defects; cranial defect size between 50 cm² and 150 cm²; adequate clinical condition for elective surgery

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: patients with active infection; history of rejection to biomaterials; patients with immunosuppression

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frame
Aesthetic Satisfaction: this is the main measure used to compare the two molding techniques (in situ vs. prototyped), it´s expected more satisfaction with prototyped

Secondary

MeasureTime frame
Surgical time: evaluation of the total duration of the surgical procedure to verify if prototyping reduces time in the operating room; wound dehiscence: monitoring for any premature opening of the surgical wound; wound infection: assessment of post-operative infectious complications

Countries

BR

Contacts

Public ContactRenato Colenci

Unesp - Universidade Estadual Paulista "Julio de Mesquita Filho"

renato.colenci@unesp.br+55-14-981333743

Outcome results

None listed

Source: REBEC (via WHO ICTRP) · Data processed: May 1, 2026