Médecine

Paramédical

Autres domaines


S'abonner

How useful is 3D printing in maxillofacial surgery? - 07/09/17

Doi : 10.1016/j.jormas.2017.07.002 
A. Louvrier a, b, , P. Marty a, b, A. Barrabé a, b, E. Euvrard a, b, c, B. Chatelain a, E. Weber a, C. Meyer a, b, c
a Department of oral and maxillofacial surgery, university hospital of Besançon, boulevard Fleming, 25030 Besançon cedex, France 
b University of Franche-Comté, UFR SMP, 19, rue Ambroise-Paré, 25000 Besançon, France 
c Nanomedicine Lab, imagery and therapeutics, EA 4662, UFR sciences and techniques, université de Franche-Comté, route de Gray, 25030 Besançon cedex, France 

Corresponding author. Department of oral and maxillofacial surgery, university hospital of Besançon, boulevard Fleming, 25030 Besançon cedex, France.

Bienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.

pages 7
Iconographies 8
Vidéos 0
Autres 0

Abstract

Introduction

3D printing seems to have more and more applications in maxillofacial surgery (MFS), particularly since the release on the market of general use 3D printers several years ago. The aim of our study was to answer 4 questions: 1. Who uses 3D printing in MFS and is it routine or not? 2. What are the main clinical indications for 3D printing in MFS and what are the kinds of objects that are used? 3. Are these objects printed by an official medical device (MD) manufacturer or made directly within the department or the lab? 4. What are the advantages and drawbacks?

Methodology

Two bibliographic researches were conducted on January the 1st, 2017 in PubMed, without time limitation, using “maxillofacial surgery” AND “3D printing” for the first and for the second “maxillofacial surgery” AND “computer-aided design” AND “computer-aided manufacturing” as keywords. Articles in English or French dealing with human clinical use of 3D printing were selected. Publication date, nationality of the authors, number of patients treated, clinical indication(s), type of printed object(s), type of printing (lab/hospital-made or professional/industry) and advantages/drawbacks were recorded.

Results

Two hundred and ninety-seven articles from 35 countries met the criteria. The most represented country was the People's Republic of China (16% of the articles). A total of 2889 patients (10 per article on average) benefited from 3D printed objects. The most frequent clinical indications were dental implant surgery and mandibular reconstruction. The most frequently printed objects were surgical guides and anatomic models. Forty-five percent of the prints were professional. The main advantages were improvement in precision and reduction of surgical time. The main disadvantages were the cost of the objects and the manufacturing period when printed by the industry.

Discussion

The arrival on the market of low-cost printers has increased the use of 3D printing in MFS. Anatomic models are not considered to be MDs and do not have to follow any regulation. Nowadays, they are easily printed with low-cost printers. They allow for better preoperative planning and training for the procedures and for pre-shaping of plates. Occlusal splints and surgical guides are intended for the smooth transfer of planning to the operating room. They are considered to be MDs and even if they are easy to print, they have to follow the regulations applying to MDs. Patient specific implants (custom-made plates and skeletal reconstruction modules) are much more demanding objects and their manufacturing remains nowadays in the hands of the industry. The main limitation of in-hospital 3D printing is the restrictive regulations applying to MDs. The main limitations of professional 3D printing are the cost and the lead time. 3D printed objects are nowadays easily available in MFS. However, they will never replace a surgeon's skill and should only be considered as useful tools.

Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.

Keywords : Maxillofacial surgery, 3D printing, Computer-aided design, Computer-aided manufacturing, Review


Plan


 Article reported from the 53rd SFSCMFCO Congress (Marseille, October 4-7, 2017) and published under the responsibility of the Scientific Committee of the congress.


© 2017  Elsevier Masson SAS. Tous droits réservés.
Ajouter à ma bibliothèque Retirer de ma bibliothèque Imprimer
Export

    Export citations

  • Fichier

  • Contenu

Vol 118 - N° 4

P. 206-212 - septembre 2017 Retour au numéro
Article précédent Article précédent
  • Editorial
  • C. Chossegros
| Article suivant Article suivant
  • How to produce pre-shaped rigid arch bars using low-cost 3D printing technology – A technical note
  • C. Druelle, S. Touzet-Roumazeille, G. Raoul, J. Ferri, R. Nicot

Bienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.

Bienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’achat d’article à l’unité est indisponible à l’heure actuelle.

Déjà abonné à cette revue ?

Mon compte


Plateformes Elsevier Masson

Déclaration CNIL

EM-CONSULTE.COM est déclaré à la CNIL, déclaration n° 1286925.

En application de la loi nº78-17 du 6 janvier 1978 relative à l'informatique, aux fichiers et aux libertés, vous disposez des droits d'opposition (art.26 de la loi), d'accès (art.34 à 38 de la loi), et de rectification (art.36 de la loi) des données vous concernant. Ainsi, vous pouvez exiger que soient rectifiées, complétées, clarifiées, mises à jour ou effacées les informations vous concernant qui sont inexactes, incomplètes, équivoques, périmées ou dont la collecte ou l'utilisation ou la conservation est interdite.
Les informations personnelles concernant les visiteurs de notre site, y compris leur identité, sont confidentielles.
Le responsable du site s'engage sur l'honneur à respecter les conditions légales de confidentialité applicables en France et à ne pas divulguer ces informations à des tiers.