3D printing in oral and maxillofacial surgery: a nationwide survey among university and non-university hospitals and private practices in Germany

Pabst, Andreas; Goetze, Elisabeth; Thiem, Daniel G. E.; Bartella, Alexander K.; Seifert, Lukas Benedikt; Beiglboeck, Fabian M; Kröplin, Juliane; Hoffmann, Jürgen; Zeller, Alexander‐Nicolai

doi:10.1007/s00784-021-04073-6

Cited by 16 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Taken together, it is less likely that non-university surgeons will come in contact with new technology such as AM. This assumption on a lower adoption rate of AM among nonuniversity hospitals was validated in Pabst et al [17] study on AM adoption in OMFS in Germany but not in the present study on adoption in Sweden. The present study covered all university hospitals but only a minority (7/20) of nonuniversity hospitals.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 48%

Adoption of additive manufacturing in oral and maxillofacial surgery among university and non-university hospitals in Sweden: findings from a nationwide survey

Zheng

Wang

Brantnell

et al. 2023

Oral Maxillofac Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Additive manufacturing (AM) is an innovative printing technology that can manufacture 3-dimensional solid objects by adding layers of material from model data. AM in oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMFS) provides several clinical applications such as surgical guides and implants. However, the adoption of AM in OMFS is not well covered. The purpose was to study the adoption of AM in OMFS in university and non-university hospitals in Sweden. Three research questions were addressed: What is the degree of using AM solutions in university and non-university hospitals?; What are AM solutions used?; How are the AM solutions accessed (production mode) in university hospitals and non-university hospitals? Methods A survey was distributed to OMF surgeons in Sweden. The questionnaire consisted of 16 questions. Data were analyzed through descriptive and content analysis. Results A total of 14 university and non-university hospitals were captured. All 14 hospitals have adopted AM technology and 11 of the hospitals adopted AM in OMFS. Orthognathic and trauma surgery are two major types of surgery that involve AM technology where material extrusion and vat polymerization are the two most used AM technologies in OMFS. The primary application of AM was in medical models and guides. Conclusion Majority of Swedish university hospitals and non-university hospitals have adopted AM in OMFS. The type of hospital (university or non-university hospital) has no impact on AM adoption. AM in OMFS in Sweden can be perceived to be a mature clinical application.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 48%

Adoption of additive manufacturing in oral and maxillofacial surgery among university and non-university hospitals in Sweden: findings from a nationwide survey

Zheng

Wang

Brantnell

et al. 2023

Oral Maxillofac Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, obtaining these models has generally required high costs. For them, inexpensive, patient-specific 3D models would be a great help [ 11 , 12 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fused Deposition Modeling 3D Printing in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery: Problems and Solutions

Kamio¹,

Onda²

2022

Cureus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three-dimensional (3D) printing technology in medicine is one of the new and innovative technology for fabricating 3D models of complex anatomical structures that can be observed both visually and haptically. Patient-specific 3D models fabricated through this process are currently being used for various purposes, including surgical simulation, training, and medical education. Most of the personal use/low-end desktop 3D printers that are becoming widespread are fused deposition modeling (FDM) 3D printers. Compared to professional/high-end 3D printers, the price of the personal use/low-end desktop FDM 3D printer itself, filament, and running costs are lower; it can lower the economic bottleneck for introducing 3D printing technology into clinical practice, such as surgical simulation. With a desktop FDM 3D printer and a general-purpose PC, anyone can now rapidly fabricate 3D models on their own without having to rely on 3D printing labs and specialized technicians. However, it is also true that FDM 3D printers, due to their mechanical characteristics, encounter many difficulties and problems that emerge during the 3D printing process. Knowledge, know-how, and tips about FDM 3D printers have been introduced in various media, and it has become easy to know about them worldwide via the Internet. However, there has been no comprehensive technical review to date to produce osseous 3D models for use in oral and maxillofacial surgery. In this report, to create 3D models according to the characteristics of maxillofacial and oral surgery, we enable surgeons themselves to create 3D models smoothly by presenting ideas for CT scanning, points to note when exporting Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) image data, how to create optimal stereolithography (STL) models, and problems and solutions for 3D printing.

show abstract

“…3D printing, also known as additive manufacturing or rapid prototyping, is a rapidly expanding technology that is beginning to revolutionise the medical and healthcare industry [11,12]. Since its inception in the 1980s for use in design and engineering, it has more recently been introduced in a medical context and is now quickly gaining momentum globally [12][13][14][15]. Initially introduced in maxillofacial surgery, the technology can now be applied in various surgical specialties [12,15].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Since its inception in the 1980s for use in design and engineering, it has more recently been introduced in a medical context and is now quickly gaining momentum globally [12][13][14][15]. Initially introduced in maxillofacial surgery, the technology can now be applied in various surgical specialties [12,15]. Within these, 3D printing technology is used for a variety of applications including pre-operative planning, patient and medical student education, and the manufacture of surgical implants and prostheses [12,16].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does using 3D printed models for pre-operative planning improve surgical outcomes of foot and ankle fracture fixation? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Wood

Ahmed

2022

Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The systematic review aims to establish the value of using 3D printing-assisted pre-operative planning, compared to conventional planning, for the operative management of foot and ankle fractures. Methods The systematic review was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. Two authors performed searches on three electronic databases. Studies were included if they conformed to pre-established eligibility criteria. Primary outcome measures included intraoperative blood loss, operation duration, and fluoroscopy time. The American orthopaedic foot and ankle score (AOFAS) was used as a secondary outcome. Quality assessment was completed using the Cochrane RoB2 form and a meta-analysis was performed to assess heterogeneity. Results Five studies met the inclusion and exclusion criteria and were eventually included in the review. A meta-analysis established that using 3D printed models for pre-operative planning resulted in a significant reduction in operation duration (mean difference [MD] = − 23.52 min, 95% CI [− 39.31, − 7.74], p = 0.003), intraoperative blood loss (MD = − 30.59 mL, 95% CI [− 46.31, − 14.87], p = 0.0001), and number of times fluoroscopy was used (MD = − 3.20 times, 95% CI [− 4.69, − 1.72], p < 0.0001). Using 3D printed models also significantly increased AOFAS score results (MD = 2.24, 95% CI [0.69, 3.78], p = 0.005), demonstrating improved ankle health. Conclusion The systematic review provides promising evidence that 3D printing-assisted surgery significantly improves treatment for foot and ankle fractures in terms of operation duration, intraoperative blood loss, number of times fluoroscopy was used intraoperatively, and improved overall ankle health as measured by the AOFAS score.

show abstract

3D printing in oral and maxillofacial surgery: a nationwide survey among university and non-university hospitals and private practices in Germany

Cited by 16 publications

References 53 publications

Adoption of additive manufacturing in oral and maxillofacial surgery among university and non-university hospitals in Sweden: findings from a nationwide survey

Adoption of additive manufacturing in oral and maxillofacial surgery among university and non-university hospitals in Sweden: findings from a nationwide survey

Fused Deposition Modeling 3D Printing in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery: Problems and Solutions

Does using 3D printed models for pre-operative planning improve surgical outcomes of foot and ankle fracture fixation? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About