3D printing of maxillofacial prosthesis materials: Challenges and opportunities

Ak, Das; Awasthi, Pratiksha; Jain, Veena; Banerjee, Shib Shankar

doi:10.1016/j.bprint.2023.e00282

Cited by 11 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 104 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They possess several advantages in being flexible yet having adequate stiffness, biocompatibility, and conductivity [27]. Currently, polyphosphazenes, silicone blocks, polyvinyl chloride, foaming silicones, polyurethane, and siphenyle polymers have gathered attention as materials commonly employed for the fabrication of maxillofacial prosthesis [28]. Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) implants have been successfully applied to zygomatic defects with good success rates [29].…”

Section: Background Of the Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of Hard and Soft Tissue Responses to Four Different Generation Bioresorbable Materials-Poly-l-Lactic Acid (PLLA), Poly-l-Lactic Acid/Polyglycolic Acid (PLLA/PGA), Uncalcined/Unsintered Hydroxyapatite/Poly-l-Lactic Acid (u-HA/PLLA) and Uncalcined/Unsintered Hydroxyapatite/Poly-l-Lactic Acid/Polyglycolic Acid (u-HA/PLLA/PGA) in Maxillofacial Surgery: An In-Vivo Animal Study

Ayasaka,

Ramanathan,

Huy

et al. 2023

Materials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bone stabilization using osteosynthesis devices is essential in maxillofacial surgery. Owing to numerous disadvantages, bioresorbable materials are preferred over titanium for osteofixation in certain procedures. The biomaterials used for osteosynthesis in maxillofacial surgery have been subdivided into four generations. No study has compared the tissue responses generated by four generations of biomaterials and the feasibility of using these biomaterials in different maxillofacial surgeries. We conducted an in vivo animal study to evaluate host tissue response to four generations of implanted biomaterial sheets, namely, PLLA, PLLA/PGA, u-HA/PLLA, and u-HA/PLLA/PGA. New bone volume and pertinent biomarkers for bone regeneration, such as Runx2, osteocalcin (OCN), and the inflammatory marker CD68, were analyzed, and the expression of each biomarker was correlated with soft tissues outside the biomaterial and toward the host bone at the end of week 2 and week 10. The use of first-generation biomaterials for maxillofacial osteosynthesis is not advantageous over the use of other updated biomaterials. Second-generation biomaterials degrade faster and can be potentially used in non-stress regions, such as the midface. Third and fourth-generation biomaterials possess bioactive/osteoconductivity improved strength. Application of third-generation biomaterials can be considered panfacially. Fourth-generation biomaterials can be worth considering applying at midface due to the shorter degradation period.

show abstract

Section: Background Of the Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of Hard and Soft Tissue Responses to Four Different Generation Bioresorbable Materials-Poly-l-Lactic Acid (PLLA), Poly-l-Lactic Acid/Polyglycolic Acid (PLLA/PGA), Uncalcined/Unsintered Hydroxyapatite/Poly-l-Lactic Acid (u-HA/PLLA) and Uncalcined/Unsintered Hydroxyapatite/Poly-l-Lactic Acid/Polyglycolic Acid (u-HA/PLLA/PGA) in Maxillofacial Surgery: An In-Vivo Animal Study

Ayasaka,

Ramanathan,

Huy

et al. 2023

Materials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The continuous growth and improvement of additive manufacturing technologies has further catalyzed the exploration of these materials and its processability allowing the precise layer-by-layer fabrication of complex geometries with improved mechanical properties and structural features [ 19 ]. Das et al, in recent years, stated how various additive manufacturing technologies were developed and applied to the biomedical field to obtain patient-specific medical devices such as implants and scaffolds, orthoses and prostheses or even drug delivery systems [ 20 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Highly Reinforced Acrylic Resins for Hard Tissue Engineering and Their Suitability to Be Additively Manufactured through Nozzle-Based Photo-Printing

Gallicchio,

Spinelli,

Russo

et al. 2023

Materials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mineralized connective tissues represent the hardest materials of human tissues, and polymer based composite materials are widely used to restore damaged tissues. In particular, light activated resins and composites are generally considered as the most popular choice in the restorative dental practice. The first purpose of this study is to investigate novel highly reinforced light activated particulate dental composites. An innovative additive manufacturing technique, based on the extrusion of particle reinforced photo-polymers, has been recently developed for processing composites with a filler fraction (w/w) only up to 10%. The second purpose of this study is to explore the feasibility of 3D printing highly reinforced composites. A variety of composites based on 2,2-bis(acryloyloxymethyl)butyl acrylate and trimethylolpropane triacrylate reinforced with silica, titanium dioxide, and zirconia nanoparticles were designed and investigated through compression tests. The composite showing the highest mechanical properties was processed through the 3D bioplotter AK12 equipped with the Enfis Uno Air LED Engine. The composite showing the highest stiffness and strength was successfully processed through 3D printing, and a four-layer composite scaffold was realized. Mechanical properties of particulate composites can be tailored by modifying the type and amount of the filler fraction. It is possible to process highly reinforced photopolymerizable composite materials using additive manufacturing technologies consisting of 3D fiber deposition through extrusion in conjunction with photo-polymerization.

show abstract

“…AM has several advantages over conventional techniques as well a over the CAM subtractive techniques. Some of the main advantages are: the ability to rapid fabricate complex structures at a considerably reduced cost [3]; a full or partially digital workflow with integrating patient's data (Cone beam computed tomography-CBCT, intraoral scan, facial scan), design in a large variety of CAD software and manufacturing carried out directly by printing the prosthesis itself or indirectly by printing prosthesis prototypes or molds [4]; less material waste; possible to reprint molds without the need of designing them again [5]; availability of different type of materials mimicking the defects needing to be restored (soft or hard tissue) [2]; constant improvements in material characteristics by adding different components [6] or improving in manufacturing techniques [7].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Aditive Manufacturing in Maxillofacial Prosthodontics

Cristache

2023

Applied Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

3D printing of maxillofacial prosthesis materials: Challenges and opportunities

Cited by 11 publications

References 104 publications

Highly Reinforced Acrylic Resins for Hard Tissue Engineering and Their Suitability to Be Additively Manufactured through Nozzle-Based Photo-Printing

Aditive Manufacturing in Maxillofacial Prosthodontics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About