Research
Surgical decisions should rest on published outcomes rather than forum consensus. This shelf holds real, citable literature only — nothing is summarised here that cannot be traced to a source.
Citations are being verified
Every entry must link to a real DOI or indexed record. Rather than publish plausible-looking references, this library stays empty until each citation has been checked against the source.
Read the evidence-literacy guidesReading the literature critically
Study design outranks conclusion
A systematic review of prospective cohorts carries far more weight than a single-surgeon retrospective series with 20 patients and no control.
Check follow-up length
Skeletal relapse, implant complications and scar maturation appear over years. A 6-month outcome paper cannot describe stability.
Look for who measured the result
Surgeon-rated aesthetic outcome is not the same as patient-reported outcome using a validated instrument such as FACE-Q.
Complication rates are floors, not ceilings
Published series come from high-volume specialist centres. Rates in general practice are typically higher.
Information on this platform is for educational purposes and should not replace consultation with a qualified medical professional. Surgical suitability, risks, and expected outcomes must be assessed by an appropriately qualified surgeon.