Planning implant positions for an auricular prosthesis with digital data

Reitemeier, Bernd; Schöne, Christine; Schreiber, S; Stockmann, Frank; Ullmann, Katrin; Eckelt, Uwe

doi:10.1016/s0022-3913(12)60038-9

Cited by 10 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As illustrated by Table 2 a–c, the case reports were authored by the following: Ciocca L, Scotti R. 2004 [ 26 ], Sykes et al, 2004 [ 27 ], Jiao et al, 2004 [ 28 ], Ciocca L et al, 2007 [ 29 ], Kurtulmus et al, 2009 [ 17 ], Ciocca L et al, 2009 [ 30 ], Ciocca. L et al, 2010 [ 32 ], De Crescenzio F et al, 2011 [ 33 ], Liacouras et al, 2011 [ 34 ], Kolodney et al, 2011 [ 35 ], Bai et al, 2012 [ 37 ], Reitemeier et al, 2012 [ 38 ], Hatamleh and Watson 2013 [ 39 ], Wang et al, 2015 [ 42 ], Nuseir et al, 2015 [ 43 ], Weissler et al, 2017 [ 45 ], Yadav et al, 2017 [ 46 ], Nafij Bin Jamayet et al, 2018 [ 47 ], Unkovskiy et al, 2018 [ 48 ], Sanghavi, et al, 2018 [ 49 ], Cevik and Kocacikli 2020 [ 52 ], Domingue D. et al, 2021 [ 54 ], Unkovskiy et al, 2021 [ 55 ], Dashti et al, 2022 [ 56 ], Heydenrych A et al, 2023 [ 58 ] showed a low risk of bias. Meanwhile, Table 3 a,b showed that the case series authored by Turgut et al, 2009 [ 31 ], Verma et al, 2010 [ 22 ], Karatas MO et al, 2011 [ 36 ], Bai et al, 2014 [ 40 ], Tam CK et al, 2014 [ 8 ], Watson and Hatamleh 2014 [ 41 ], Choi et al, 2016 [ 44 ], Ferreira R, Vives P 2019 [ 50 ], Vijverberg MA et al, 2019 [ 51 ], McHutchion and Aalto 2021 [ 53 ], and Hatamleh MM et al, 2022 [ 57 ] presented a low risk of bias.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Applications of CAD/CAM Technology for Craniofacial Implants Placement and Manufacturing of Auricular Prostheses—Systematic Review

Tanveer,

Ridwan-Pramana,

Molinero-Mourelle

et al. 2023

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This systematic review was aimed at gathering the clinical and technical applications of CAD/CAM technology for craniofacial implant placement and processing of auricular prostheses based on clinical cases. According to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, an electronic data search was performed. Human clinical studies utilizing digital planning, designing, and printing systems for craniofacial implant placement and processing of auricular prostheses for prosthetic rehabilitation of auricular defects were included. Following a data search, a total of 36 clinical human studies were included, which were digitally planned and executed through various virtual software to rehabilitate auricular defects. Preoperative data were collected mainly through computed tomography scans (CT scans) (55 cases); meanwhile, the most common laser scanners were the 3dMDface System (3dMD LLC, Atlanta, Georgia, USA) (6 cases) and the 3 Shape scanner (3 Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark) (6 cases). The most common digital design software are Mimics Software (Mimics Innovation Suite, Materialize, Leuven, Belgium) (18 cases), Freeform software (Freeform, NC, USA) (13 cases), and 3 Shape software (3 Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark) (12 cases). Surgical templates were designed and utilized in 35 cases to place 88 craniofacial implants in auricular defect areas. The most common craniofacial implants were Vistafix craniofacial implants (Entific Medical Systems, Goteborg, Sweden) in 22 cases. A surgical navigation system was used to place 20 craniofacial implants in the mastoid bone. Digital applications of CAD/CAM technology include, but are not limited to, study models, mirrored replicas of intact ears, molds, retentive attachments, customized implants, substructures, and silicone prostheses. The included studies demonstrated a predictable clinical outcome, reduced the patient’s visits, and completed the prosthetic rehabilitation in reasonable time and at reasonable cost. However, equipment costs and trained technical staff were highlighted as possible limitations to the use of CAD/CAM systems.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Reitemeier et al, 2012 [38] The surgical template for implant placement was designed by mirroring the intact ear to the defect side. The glabella and nose were used to stabilize the surgical template during the surgical procedure.…”

Section: Liacouras Et Al 2011 [34]mentioning

confidence: 99%

Applications of CAD/CAM Technology for Craniofacial Implants Placement and Manufacturing of Auricular Prostheses—Systematic Review

Tanveer,

Ridwan-Pramana,

Molinero-Mourelle

et al. 2023

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For implant‐retained auricular prostheses, implant surgery should avoid injuring vital anatomical structures, such as the sigmoid sinus and dura mater. Compared with soft tissue‐supported surgical guides, some studies have argued that hard tissue‐supported surgical guides could provide a more stable orientation, such as the nasal or glabellar zone 22,25,26 . Dings et al 27 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Compared with soft tissuesupported surgical guides, some studies have argued that hard tissue-supported surgical guides could provide a more stable orientation, such as the nasal or glabellar zone. 22,25,26 Dings et al 27 found that using bone fixation pins to obtain retention led to better accuracy with a digital workflow; however, it inevitably required bone fixation pins in multiple anatomical sites with possible injuries. In this study, two types of tooth-supported surgical guides and detachable casts were designed to analyze their accuracy in vitro.…”

Section: Guide 1 Guidementioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy of implant placement using CAD–CAM tooth‐supported surgical guides for an auricular prosthesis in vitro

Fan

Wei

Zhao

et al. 2023

Journal of Prosthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeTo evaluate the accuracy of tooth‐supported surgical guides used to place implants in auricular prostheses. The accuracy (trueness and precision) of the implant positions was evaluated, and the difference between the surgical guide with and without retention of the external auditory canal (EAC) was compared.Materials and methodsThis study simulated implant placement in vitro for the treatment of right auricle malformation. Surgical guides and other casts were fabricated using additive manufacturing technology. The casts were divided into 2 groups according to the surgical guide, with 10 bone blocks in each group (with or without the EAC plug (Guides 1 and 2)). Three implant positions (Implants 1–3) were prepared for each bone block using surgical guides. Implant positions were registered using light‐body silicone impressions combined with optical surface scans to measure the coronal, apical, depth, and angular deviations. Four deviations of trueness and precision were reported as the mean ± standard deviation, which was analyzed by Student's t‐test.ResultsEach group of 10 bone blocks with 30 implant positions was successfully prepared and digitally reproduced as implants. The accuracies of implant position with surgical guides were acceptable when compared with the preoperatively planned implant positions. Compared with the Guide 2 group, there was a significant difference in the apical, depth, and angular deviations of Guide 1 group in terms of precision (p = 0.001). There was a significant difference in the depth deviation of Implant 1 (p = 0.028) and apical deviation of Implant 2 (p < 0.001) compared two groups in terms of trueness. In terms of precision, there was a significant difference in the coronal (p = 0.002), apical (p = 0.001), and depth (p < 0.001) deviation of Implant 1; apical (p = 0.036) and angular (p < 0.001) deviation of Implant 2 also existed significant difference; the coronal deviation of Implant 3 (p = 0.018) also existed significant difference. Moreover, the group with the EAC plug showed lower deviation in precision and a smaller volume in the 95% confidence ellipsoid.ConclusionBoth types of tooth‐supported surgical guides can provide acceptable accuracy. A surgical guide with an EAC plug was considered to be more precise.

show abstract

“…While adhesive‐ and bar‐retained prostheses have shown clinical success, 7,23,24 a 2012 review by Sharma et al 25 identified benefits of implant retention versus adhesive. While approaches similar to the current situation (scanning, digitization and 3D‐printing) have been reported, 9,10,12,13,26 all used conventional CT 9,10,13,26 or electron‐beam tomography 12 . The current treatment used CBCT with specific implant‐planning software, which offered the surgical advantages of (a) direct 3D printing of the surgical guides and (b) CBCT‐generated data reflecting the patient's anatomy at multiple levels.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Digital surgical planning and placement of osseointegrated implants to retain an auricular prosthesis using implant software with cone‐beam computed tomography and 3D‐printed surgical guides: A case report

Domingue¹,

Sinada

White³

2020

Clinical Case Reports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Planning implant positions for an auricular prosthesis with digital data

Cited by 10 publications

References 14 publications

Applications of CAD/CAM Technology for Craniofacial Implants Placement and Manufacturing of Auricular Prostheses—Systematic Review

Applications of CAD/CAM Technology for Craniofacial Implants Placement and Manufacturing of Auricular Prostheses—Systematic Review

Accuracy of implant placement using CAD–CAM tooth‐supported surgical guides for an auricular prosthesis in vitro

Digital surgical planning and placement of osseointegrated implants to retain an auricular prosthesis using implant software with cone‐beam computed tomography and 3D‐printed surgical guides: A case report

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About