3D Printing in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery: a Nationwide Survey Among University and Non-university Hospitals and Private Practices in Germany

Overview

Journal Clin Oral Investig

Specialty Dentistry

Date 2021 Jul 19

PMID 34278522

Citations 8

Authors

Andreas Pabst

Elisabeth Goetze

Daniel G E Thiem

Alexander K Bartella

Lukas Seifert

Fabian M Beiglboeck

Juliane Kroplin

Jurgen Hoffmann

Alexander-N Zeller

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objectives: Oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMFS) has undergone pioneering progress through the development of three-dimensional (3D) printing technologies. The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of 3D printing at OMFS university and non-university hospitals and private practices in Germany.

Materials And Methods: For explorative assessment, a dynamic online questionnaire containing 10-22 questions about the current use of 3D printing and the reasons behind it was sent to OMFS university and non-university hospitals and private practices in Germany by the study group from the German Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (DGMKG).

Results: In total, 156 participants responded from university (23 [14.7%]) and non-university hospitals (19 [12.2%]) and private practices without (85 [50.5%]) and with 29 (18.6%) inpatient treatment facility. Highest applications of 3D printing were in implantology (57%), microvascular bone reconstructions (25.6%), and orthognathics (21.1%). Among the participants, 37.8% reportedly were not using 3D printing. Among the hospitals and private practices, 21.1% had their own 3D printer, and 2.5% shared it with other departments. The major reason for not having a 3D printer was poor cost efficiency (37.6%). Possessing a 3D printer was motivated by independence from external providers (91.3%) and rapid template production (82.6%). The preferred printing methods were stereolithography (69.4 %) and filament printing (44.4%).

Conclusions: OMFS 3D printing is established in Germany with a wide range of applications.

Clinical Relevance: The prevalence of 3D printing in hospitals and private practices is moderate. This may be enhanced by future innovations including improved cost efficiency.

Citing Articles

Augmented reality navigation in orthognathic surgery: Comparative analysis and a paradigm shift.

Zelechowski M, Zubizarreta-Oteiza J, Karnam M, Faludi B, Zentai N, Gerig N Healthc Technol Lett. 2025; 12(1):e12109.

PMID: 39816699 PMC: 11730987. DOI: 10.1049/htl2.12109.

Application of digital model of mixed reality dynamic tracking technique in oral and maxillofacial surgery: a basic research.

Zhao S, Li C, Zhang Z Hua Xi Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2024; 42(6):787-794.

PMID: 39610076 PMC: 11669936. DOI: 10.7518/hxkq.2024.2024101.

Qualitative exploration of 3D printing in Swedish healthcare: perceived effects and barriers.

Sag O, Li X, Aman B, Thor A, Brantnell A BMC Health Serv Res. 2024; 24(1):1455.

PMID: 39580425 PMC: 11585134. DOI: 10.1186/s12913-024-11975-0.

3D printing materials and 3D printed surgical devices in oral and maxillofacial surgery: design, workflow and effectiveness.

Wang X, Mu M, Yan J, Han B, Ye R, Guo G Regen Biomater. 2024; 11:rbae066.

PMID: 39169972 PMC: 11338467. DOI: 10.1093/rb/rbae066.

Oral and maxillofacial surgeons' views on the adoption of additive manufacturing: findings from a nationwide survey.

Zheng X, Wang R, Thor A, Brantnell A Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2024; 28(2):869-875.

PMID: 38316694 PMC: 11144670. DOI: 10.1007/s10006-024-01219-0.

References

Tack P, Victor J, Gemmel P, Annemans L . 3D-printing techniques in a medical setting: a systematic literature review. Biomed Eng Online. 2016; 15(1):115. PMC: 5073919. DOI: 10.1186/s12938-016-0236-4. View

Schubert C, van Langeveld M, Donoso L . Innovations in 3D printing: a 3D overview from optics to organs. Br J Ophthalmol. 2013; 98(2):159-61. DOI: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2013-304446. View

Mertz L . Technology comes to the playing field: new world of sports promises fewer injuries, better performance. IEEE Pulse. 2013; 4(5):12-7. DOI: 10.1109/MPUL.2013.2271683. View

Ventola C . Medical Applications for 3D Printing: Current and Projected Uses. P T. 2014; 39(10):704-11. PMC: 4189697. View

Ganguli A, Pagan-Diaz G, Grant L, Cvetkovic C, Bramlet M, Vozenilek J . 3D printing for preoperative planning and surgical training: a review. Biomed Microdevices. 2018; 20(3):65. DOI: 10.1007/s10544-018-0301-9. View

Waran V, Narayanan V, Karuppiah R, Pancharatnam D, Chandran H, Raman R . Injecting realism in surgical training-initial simulation experience with custom 3D models. J Surg Educ. 2014; 71(2):193-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.jsurg.2013.08.010. View

Watson R . A low-cost surgical application of additive fabrication. J Surg Educ. 2014; 71(1):14-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.jsurg.2013.10.012. View

Werz S, Zeichner S, Berg B, Zeilhofer H, Thieringer F . 3D Printed Surgical Simulation Models as educational tool by maxillofacial surgeons. Eur J Dent Educ. 2018; 22(3):e500-e505. DOI: 10.1111/eje.12332. View

Lichtenstein J, Zeller A, Lemound J, Lichtenstein T, Rana M, Gellrich N . 3D-Printed Simulation Device for Orbital Surgery. J Surg Educ. 2016; 74(1):2-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.jsurg.2016.07.005. View

10.

Petzold R, Zeilhofer H, Kalender W . Rapid protyping technology in medicine--basics and applications. Comput Med Imaging Graph. 2000; 23(5):277-84. DOI: 10.1016/s0895-6111(99)00025-7. View

11.

WEBB P . A review of rapid prototyping (RP) techniques in the medical and biomedical sector. J Med Eng Technol. 2000; 24(4):149-53. DOI: 10.1080/03091900050163427. View

12.

Winder J, Bibb R . Medical rapid prototyping technologies: state of the art and current limitations for application in oral and maxillofacial surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2005; 63(7):1006-15. DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2005.03.016. View

13.

Kamio T, Hayashi K, Onda T, Takaki T, Shibahara T, Yakushiji T . Utilizing a low-cost desktop 3D printer to develop a "one-stop 3D printing lab" for oral and maxillofacial surgery and dentistry fields. 3D Print Med. 2018; 4(1):6. PMC: 6097791. DOI: 10.1186/s41205-018-0028-5. View

14.

Jehn P, Spalthoff S, Korn P, Zeller A, Dittmann J, Zimmerer R . Patient-specific implant modification for alloplastic bridging of mandibular segmental defects in head and neck surgery. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2020; 48(3):315-322. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcms.2020.01.018. View

15.

Zeller A, Neuhaus M, Weissbach L, Rana M, Dhawan A, Eckstein F . Patient-Specific Mandibular Reconstruction Plates Increase Accuracy and Long-Term Stability in Immediate Alloplastic Reconstruction of Segmental Mandibular Defects. J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2020; 19(4):609-615. PMC: 7524954. DOI: 10.1007/s12663-019-01323-9. View

16.

Honigmann P, Sharma N, Okolo B, Popp U, Msallem B, Thieringer F . Patient-Specific Surgical Implants Made of 3D Printed PEEK: Material, Technology, and Scope of Surgical Application. Biomed Res Int. 2018; 2018:4520636. PMC: 5884234. DOI: 10.1155/2018/4520636. View

17.

Rohner D, Guijarro-Martinez R, Bucher P, Hammer B . Importance of patient-specific intraoperative guides in complex maxillofacial reconstruction. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2012; 41(5):382-90. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcms.2012.10.021. View

18.

Norman J, Madurawe R, Moore C, Khan M, Khairuzzaman A . A new chapter in pharmaceutical manufacturing: 3D-printed drug products. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2016; 108:39-50. DOI: 10.1016/j.addr.2016.03.001. View

19.

Jacobs C, Lin A . A New Classification of Three-Dimensional Printing Technologies: Systematic Review of Three-Dimensional Printing for Patient-Specific Craniomaxillofacial Surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017; 139(5):1211-1220. DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000003232. View

20.

Lin A, Yarholar L . Plastic Surgery Innovation with 3D Printing for Craniomaxillofacial Operations. Mo Med. 2020; 117(2):136-142. PMC: 7144700. View