Custom-Made Implant for Maxillofacial Defects Using Rapid Prototype Models

doi:10.1016/j.joms.2012.10.015

Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

Volume 71, Issue 2, February 2013, Pages e104-e110

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2012.10.015 Get rights and content

Section snippets

Materials and Methods

This pilot study was carried out in the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Sharad Pawar Dental College and Hospital, from October 2007 to October 2009. Ethical clearance was obtained from the university ethical committee. The patients were informed of the study, and written informed consent was obtained from the patients. The Declaration of Helsinki, Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects, was followed for the present study.

Results

During the present study, the patients were evaluated clinically and radiographically for the following parameters: 1) time required for the surgical procedure, 2) site of placement, 3) size of the defect to be reconstructed, and 4) complications associated with placement.

Time required for resection and reconstruction with custom-made implant was less than 3 hours in all the cases (patient 1, 2.35 hours; patient 2, 2.10 hours; patient 3, 2 hours and 5 minutes).

Site of placement included

Discussion

The optimal goal after ablation of any pathology is to perform not only a corrective operation but also to provide a functional and cosmetic reconstruction with minimal morbidity. It is critically important for the reconstructive surgeon to have a diverse armamentarium of reconstructive options. Generally, any reconstructive surgery should use the least complicated technique offering the patient the greatest chance of success, with restoration of pre-resection form and function.

Many

Acknowledgments

The author is grateful to Dr. Parigi Vedanti Madhusudhan Rao, Dr. Pulak M. Pandey and staff, Department of Mechanical Engineering, I.I.T. Delhi, India and Dr. A. M. Kuthe, Professor of Mechanical Engg., VNIT, Nagpur, Maharastra for the help rendered for MIMICS and Rapid Prototype models in their respective institutes.

First page preview

Click to open first page preview

View PDF

References (7)

Y. Ueyama et al.
Matsumura: Analysis of reconstruction of mandibular defects using single stainless steel A-O reconstruction plates
J Oral Maxillofac Surg
(1996)
T.M. Barker et al.
Accuracy of stereolithographic models of human anatomy
Australas Radiol
(1994)
A. Nizam et al.
Dimensional accuracy of the skull models produced by rapid prototyping technology using stereolithography apparatus
Archives of Orofacial Sciences
(2006)

There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (17)

3D Volume Rendering and 3D Printing (Additive Manufacturing)
2018, Dental Clinics of North America
Citation Excerpt :
In the 1990s, computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing techniques began to be used in craniomaxillofacial surgery. Many reports have demonstrated satisfactory accuracy of 3D-printed models generated from DICOM® (Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine) images and their use in surgical treatment planning.4–10 Additive manufacturing technologies have been categorized by the American Society for Testing and Materials Standards body (ASTM Active Standard F2792, June 2012) according to manufacturing process (Fig. 2):
Logistics of Three-dimensional Printing: Primer for Radiologists
2018, Academic Radiology
Citation Excerpt :
Tabakovic et al. used custom-designed implants for reconstruction and treatment for blowout orbital fractures (48). Others have shown utility of 3D printing for bone graft harvesting; such as in the design of customized mandibular tray, repair of facial clefts, and the creation of facial or extremity implants in dental and orthopedic military blast injury settings (42,49). Perhaps the most ambitious application of 3D printing is bioprinting, where living cells, bone, cartilage skin, and vessels are grown on 3D cell scaffolds (50,51).
The Association of University Radiologists Radiology Research Alliance Task Force on three-dimensional (3D) printing presents a review of the logistic considerations for establishing a clinical service using this new technology, specifically focused on implications for radiology. Specific topics include printer selection for 3D printing, software selection, creating a 3D model for printing, providing a 3D printing service, research directions, and opportunities for radiologists to be involved in 3D printing. A thorough understanding of the technology and its capabilities is necessary as the field of 3D printing continues to grow. Radiologists are in the unique position to guide this emerging technology and its use in the clinical arena.
Advantages and disadvantages of 3-dimensional printing in surgery: A systematic review
2016, Surgery (United States)
Citation Excerpt :
The most reported advantage of 3D printing in the included studies involved the new possibilities for planning the surgical procedure (n = 77, 48.7%). Several surgeons stated that the printed model gave a better impression of the anatomic characteristics48,66,67,85,112,114 and then facilitated the preoperative planning by visualization of potential difficulties and/or anatomic variations.17,36,67,79,103,142,144,152,154,159,162 Whatever the 3D printing technique used, many studies underlined that the technique was very helpful for the preoperative planning in complex anatomies.23,67,68,112,146
Three-dimensional (3D) printing is becoming increasingly important in medicine and especially in surgery. The aim of the present work was to identify the advantages and disadvantages of 3D printing applied in surgery.
We conducted a systematic review of articles on 3D printing applications in surgery published between 2005 and 2015 and identified using a PubMed and EMBASE search. Studies dealing with bioprinting, dentistry, and limb prosthesis or those not conducted in a hospital setting were excluded.
A total of 158 studies met the inclusion criteria. Three-dimensional printing was used to produce anatomic models (n = 113, 71.5%), surgical guides and templates (n = 40, 25.3%), implants (n = 15, 9.5%) and molds (n = 10, 6.3%), and primarily in maxillofacial (n = 79, 50.0%) and orthopedic (n = 39, 24.7%) operations. The main advantages reported were the possibilities for preoperative planning (n = 77, 48.7%), the accuracy of the process used (n = 53, 33.5%), and the time saved in the operating room (n = 52, 32.9%); 34 studies (21.5%) stressed that the accuracy was not satisfactory. The time needed to prepare the object (n = 31, 19.6%) and the additional costs (n = 30, 19.0%) were also seen as important limitations for routine use of 3D printing.
The additional cost and the time needed to produce devices by current 3D technology still limit its widespread use in hospitals. The development of guidelines to improve the reporting of experience with 3D printing in surgery is highly desirable.
Three-Dimensional Printing in Minimally Invasive Cardiac Surgery: Optimizing Surgical Planning and Education with Life-Like Models
2022, Brazilian Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery
A rare case series of prosthetic rehabilitation of auricular defect category: Case series
2021, Indian Journal of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology
Benign Odontogenic Tumours
2021, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery for the Clinician

View all citing articles on Scopus

View full text

Craniomaxillofacial deformities/cosmetic surgeryCustom-Made Implant for Maxillofacial Defects Using Rapid Prototype Models

Section snippets

Materials and Methods

Results

Discussion

Acknowledgments

First page preview

J Oral Maxillofac Surg

Accuracy of stereolithographic models of human anatomy

Australas Radiol

Dimensional accuracy of the skull models produced by rapid prototyping technology using stereolithography apparatus

Archives of Orofacial Sciences

Craniomaxillofacial deformities/cosmetic surgery
Custom-Made Implant for Maxillofacial Defects Using Rapid Prototype Models