Advantages of 3D printing in maxillofacial surgery- systematic review

ObjectiveTo evaluate the clinical efficacy and effectiveness of using 3D printing to develop medical devices across all medical fields.DesignSystematic review compliant with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.Data sourcesPubMed, Web of Science, OVID, IEEE Xplore and Google Scholar.MethodsA double-blinded review method was used to select all abstracts up to January 2017 that reported on clinical trials of a three-dimensional (3D)-printed medical device. The studies were ranked according to their level of evidence, divided into medical fields based on the International Classification of Diseases chapter divisions and categorised into whether they were used for preoperative planning, aiding surgery or therapy. The Downs and Black Quality Index critical appraisal tool was used to assess the quality of reporting, external validity, risk of bias, risk of confounding and power of each study.ResultsOf the 3084 abstracts screened, 350 studies met the inclusion criteria. Oral and maxillofacial surgery contained 58.3% of studies, and 23.7% covered the musculoskeletal system. Only 21 studies were randomised controlled trials (RCTs), and all fitted within these two fields. The majority of RCTs were 3D-printed anatomical models for preoperative planning and guides for aiding surgery. The main benefits of these devices were decreased surgical operation times and increased surgical accuracy.ConclusionsAll medical fields that assessed 3D-printed devices concluded that they were clinically effective. The fields that most rigorously assessed 3D-printed devices were oral and maxillofacial surgery and the musculoskeletal system, both of which concluded that the 3D-printed devices outperformed their conventional comparators. However, the efficacy and effectiveness of 3D-printed devices remain undetermined for the majority of medical fields. 3D-printed devices can play an important role in healthcare, but more rigorous and long-term assessments are needed to determine if 3D-printed devices are clinically relevant before they become part of standard clinical practice.

Download Full-text

SURGICAL OUTCOMES OF 3D PRINTED MUSCULOSKELETAL METAL IMPLANTS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

Journal of Musculoskeletal Research ◽

10.1142/s0218957718400018 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 21 (03n04) ◽

pp. 1840001

Author(s):

C. Dion ◽

M. Pollock ◽

J. Howard ◽

L. Somerville ◽

B. Lanting

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

3D Printing ◽

Surgical Outcomes ◽

Maxillofacial Surgery ◽

Case Series ◽

Free Form ◽

Bibliographic Databases ◽

Surgical Practice ◽

Metal Implants ◽

3D Printed

Introduction: Additive manufacturing, also known as 3D printing (3DP), is becoming increasingly available to surgeons throughout the world due to recent advancements in technology. 3D printing can produce complex free-form structures that would be impossible using conventional subtractive manufacturing. This offers the possibility to create implants that are better suited to the irregular anatomic shapes found in the human body. The present study aims to examine the surgical outcomes associated with the use of 3D printed metal implants and uncover the value of 3D printing in musculoskeletal surgery. Methods: A systematic review of published literature was performed in June 2017 using the PRISMA protocol. Online bibliographic databases such as MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL, and Cochrane were used to identify studies involving surgical implantation of 3D printed metal implants in musculoskeletal surgery. References from relevant studies were scanned for additional articles. Two reviewers independently screened results. Full-text articles were analyzed for eligibility. A total of 24 studies were included for data abstraction. Results were collected and qualitatively analyzed. Results: Of the 25 articles included, there were 17 case reports, 4 case series, 2 retrospective cohorts and 3 prospective cohorts. Of these articles, the majority of 3DP was done with electron beam melting (EBM) with Ti6Al4V. Orthopaedic, neurosurgical, plastic, and maxillofacial surgery articles were included in the review. All studies concluded that 3D printed implants had favourable post-operative outcomes. Some advantages included the reduction of operative time, improved osseointegration through custom implant porosity, improved fixation, decreased stress shielding, better cosmetic appearance, improved functional outcome, and limb salvage. Additional cost and time required to design and print the implants were reported as potential drawbacks to 3D printing. Discussion/Conclusions. The applications of 3D printing in musculoskeletal surgery are promising and have the potential to alter future surgical practice. However, there is a lack of quality research in the literature assessing the use of 3D printed implants. Further research is needed to evaluate the use of 3D printing in musculoskeletal surgery to understand its potential effects on surgical practice.

Download Full-text

Three-Dimensional Printing in Cleft Care: A Systematic Review

The Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal ◽

10.1177/10556656211013175 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 105566562110131

Author(s):

Farrukh R. Virani ◽

Evan C. Chua ◽

Mary Roz Timbang ◽

Tsung-yen Hsieh ◽

Craig W. Senders

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

3D Printing ◽

Clinical Outcomes ◽

Outcome Measures ◽

Cleft Lip ◽

Cleft Lip And Palate ◽

Secondary Outcome ◽

Exclusion Criteria ◽

3 Dimensional ◽

Dimensional Printing

Objective: To determine the current applications of 3-dimensional (3D) printing in the care of patients with cleft lip and palate. We also reviewed 3D printing limitations, financial analysis, and future implications. Design: Retrospective systematic review. Methods: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines were used by 3 independent reviewers. Articles were identified from Cochrane library, Ovid Medline, and Embase. Search terms included 3D printing, 3 dimensional printing, additive manufacturing, rapid prototyping, cleft lip, and cleft palate. Exclusion criteria included articles not in English, animal studies, reviews without original data, oral presentations, abstracts, opinion pieces, and articles without relevance to 3D printing or cleft lip and palate. Main Outcome Measures: Primary outcome measure was the purpose of 3D printing in the care of patients with cleft lip and palate. Secondary outcome measures were cost analysis and clinical outcomes. Results: Eight-four articles were identified, and 39 met inclusion/exclusion criteria. Eleven studies used 3D printing models for nasoalveolar molding. Patient-specific implants were developed via 3D printing in 6 articles. Surgical planning was conducted via 3D printing in 8 studies. Eight articles utilized 3D printing for anatomic models/educational purposes. 3-Dimensional printed models were used for surgical simulation/training in 6 articles. Bioprinting was utilized in 4 studies. Secondary outcome of cost was addressed in 8 articles. Conclusion: 3-Dimensional printing for the care of patients with cleft lip and palate has several applications. Potential advantages of utilizing this technology are demonstrated; however, literature is largely descriptive in nature with few clinical outcome measures. Future direction should be aimed at standardized reporting to include clinical outcomes, cost, material, printing method, and results.

Download Full-text

3D Printing in Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery

10.1007/978-3-030-77787-6 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Lobat Tayebi ◽

Reza Masaeli ◽

Kavosh Zandsalimi

Keyword(s):

3D Printing ◽

Maxillofacial Surgery

Download Full-text

Main Approaches to the Use of Biomaterials in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery: A Brief Systematic Review

MedNEXT Journal of Medical and Health Sciences ◽

10.34256/mdnt2127 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 42-48

Author(s):

Henrique Esteves Magalhães ◽

Priscilla Janaína de Lima Borelli Bovo ◽

Luciano Rodrigues Neves ◽

Marcelo Henrique Batista Santos ◽

Rogério Luiz de Araújo Vian ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Bone Tissue ◽

Dental Implants ◽

Bone Growth ◽

Maxillofacial Surgery ◽

Oral And Maxillofacial Surgery ◽

Success Rates ◽

Dental Implantation ◽

Regeneration Of Bone Tissue ◽

Regeneration Of Bone

Introduction: In recent years, procedures with the use of dental implants have increased worldwide, reaching approximately one million dental implants per year. In recent years, a platelet concentrate called FRP (fibrin-rich plasma) has been the subject of clinical studies. Associated with this, the biomaterial Bio-Oss® (Geistlich), as it is biodegradable, biocompatible, non-toxic, and has low immunogenicity, and bio stimulators can act in the regeneration of bone tissue, as it establishes with the cells the appropriate biological niche (favorable microenvironment) for bone growth. Objective: Therefore, the present study aimed to evaluate, through a brief systematic review, the results that involve bone formation for dental implantation, with the use of biomaterials such as fibrin-rich plasma and Bio-Oss®. Methods: The model used for the review was PRISMA. Was used databases such as Scopus, Scielo, Lilacs, Google Scholar, PubMed. Results: Fibrin-rich plasma (FRP) as an autologous biomaterial for use in oral and maxillofacial surgery presents most leukocytes, platelets, and growth factors, forming a fibrin matrix, with three-dimensional architecture. The Bio-Oss® biomaterial (Geistlich), as it is biodegradable, biocompatible, non-toxic, and has low immunogenicity and bio stimulators can act in the regeneration of bone tissue, since it establishes with the adenomatous mesenchymal stem cells the appropriate biological niche for bone growth and, thus, allowing the dental implant to be as effective as possible. Conclusion: The use of FRP associated with Bio-Oss® seems to illustrate high success rates with minimal costs, which may reduce the amount of bone graft needed to fill the sinus cavity, reducing the costs of the procedure.

Download Full-text

3D Printing in Construction: Current Status, Implementation Hindrances, and Development Agenda

Advances in Civil Engineering ◽

10.1155/2021/6665333 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 2021 ◽

pp. 1-12

Author(s):

Xin Ning ◽

Tong Liu ◽

Chunlin Wu ◽

Chao Wang

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

3D Printing ◽

Current Status ◽

Future Research ◽

Research Directions ◽

Technical Research ◽

Research Status ◽

Development Agenda ◽

Future Research Directions ◽

Future Topics

3D printing (3DP) is regarded as an innovation that contributes to automation in civil engineering and offers benefits in design, greenness, and efficiency. It is necessary to objectively analyze the current status and challenges associated with 3DP and identify future research directions to properly understand its construction applications. Previous research has focused more on the technical dimension of 3DP; however, the nontechnical dimension of the technology may hinder its implementation and thus must be paid particular attention to. This study presents a systematic review of the existing literature from both technical and nontechnical dimensions by combining quantitative and qualitative studies. The quantitative study was conducted using scientometric methods. The qualitative study analyzed information, including the technical research status and nontechnical challenges and trends. Two aspects of technical research status are presented, including materials and processes. In addition, nontechnical challenges and trends from the economic, environmental, social, and legislative aspects are proposed. This study provides a comprehensive agenda to advance 3DP in construction and proposes research interests, challenges, and future topics. It is intended to help construction practitioners systematically master existing processes and materials and assess the application degree and necessity of 3DP.

Download Full-text