Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons' Views on the Adoption of Additive Manufacturing: Findings from a Nationwide Survey

Overview

Journal Oral Maxillofac Surg

Specialties Dentistry
General Surgery

Date 2024 Feb 5

PMID 38316694

Authors

Xuewei Zheng

Ruilin Wang

Andreas Thor

Anders Brantnell

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objectives: Hospitals in many European countries have implemented Additive Manufacturing (AM) technology for multiple Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (OMFS) applications. Although the technology is widely implemented, surgeons also play a crucial role in whether a hospital will adopt the technology for surgical procedures. The study has two objectives: (1) to investigate how hospital type (university or non-university hospital) influences surgeons' views on AM, and (2) to explore how previous experience with AM (AM experience or not) influences surgeons' views on AM.

Materials And Methods: An online questionnaire to capture surgeons' views was designed, consisting of 11 Likert scale questions formulated according to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). The questionnaire was sent to OMF surgeons through the channel provided by the Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery in Sweden. Data were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U test to identify significant differences among OMF surgeons in terms of organizational form (i.e., university hospital or non-university hospital) and experience of AM (i.e., AM experience or no-experience).

Results: In total, 31 OMF surgeons responded to the survey. Views of surgeons from universities and non-universities, as well as between surgeons with experience and no-experience, did not show significant differences in the 11 questions captured across five CFIR domains. However, the "individual characteristics" domain in CFIR, consisting of three questions, did show significant differences between surgeons' experience with AM and no-experience (P-values: P = 0.01, P = 0.01, and P = 0.04).

Conclusions: Surgeons, whether affiliated with university hospitals or non-university hospitals and regardless of their prior experience with AM, generally exhibit a favorable attitude towards AM. However, there were significant differences in terms of individual characteristics between those who had prior experience with AM and those who did not.

Clinical Relevance: This investigation facilitates the implementation of AM in OMFS by reporting on the views of OMF surgeons on AM.

References

Patel J, Ahmed K, Guru K, Khan F, Marsh H, Khan M . An overview of the use and implementation of checklists in surgical specialities - a systematic review. Int J Surg. 2014; 12(12):1317-23. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2014.10.031. View

Labricciosa F, Sartelli M, Correia S, Abbo L, Severo M, Ansaloni L . Emergency surgeons' perceptions and attitudes towards antibiotic prescribing and resistance: a worldwide cross-sectional survey. World J Emerg Surg. 2018; 13:27. PMC: 6027784. DOI: 10.1186/s13017-018-0190-5. View

Farre-Guasch E, Wolff J, Helder M, Schulten E, Forouzanfar T, Klein-Nulend J . Application of Additive Manufacturing in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015; 73(12):2408-18. DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2015.04.019. View

Carney B, West P, Neily J, Mills P, Bagian J . Differences in nurse and surgeon perceptions of teamwork: implications for use of a briefing checklist in the OR. AORN J. 2010; 91(6):722-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.aorn.2009.11.066. View

Damschroder L, Reardon C, Widerquist M, Lowery J . The updated Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research based on user feedback. Implement Sci. 2022; 17(1):75. PMC: 9617234. DOI: 10.1186/s13012-022-01245-0. View

Khorsandi D, Fahimipour A, Abasian P, Saber S, Seyedi M, Ghanavati S . 3D and 4D printing in dentistry and maxillofacial surgery: Printing techniques, materials, and applications. Acta Biomater. 2020; 122:26-49. DOI: 10.1016/j.actbio.2020.12.044. View

Zheng X, Wang R, Brantnell A, Thor A . Adoption of additive manufacturing in oral and maxillofacial surgery among university and non-university hospitals in Sweden: findings from a nationwide survey. Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2023; 28(1):337-343. PMC: 10914879. DOI: 10.1007/s10006-023-01147-5. View

Pillai S, Upadhyay A, Khayambashi P, Farooq I, Sabri H, Tarar M . Dental 3D-Printing: Transferring Art from the Laboratories to the Clinics. Polymers (Basel). 2021; 13(1). PMC: 7795531. DOI: 10.3390/polym13010157. View

Bagaria V, Chaudhary K . A paradigm shift in surgical planning and simulation using 3Dgraphy: Experience of first 50 surgeries done using 3D-printed biomodels. Injury. 2017; 48(11):2501-2508. DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2017.08.058. View

10.

Breimaier H, Heckemann B, Halfens R, Lohrmann C . The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR): a useful theoretical framework for guiding and evaluating a guideline implementation process in a hospital-based nursing practice. BMC Nurs. 2015; 14:43. PMC: 4533946. DOI: 10.1186/s12912-015-0088-4. View

11.

Kirk M, Kelley C, Yankey N, Birken S, Abadie B, Damschroder L . A systematic review of the use of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Implement Sci. 2016; 11:72. PMC: 4869309. DOI: 10.1186/s13012-016-0437-z. View

12.

Sulaiman T . Materials in digital dentistry-A review. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2020; 32(2):171-181. DOI: 10.1111/jerd.12566. View

13.

Englezos K, Wang L, Tan E, Kang L . 3D printing for personalised medicines: implications for policy and practice. Int J Pharm. 2023; 635:122785. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2023.122785. View

14.

Pabst A, Goetze E, Thiem D, Bartella A, Seifert L, Beiglboeck F . 3D printing in oral and maxillofacial surgery: a nationwide survey among university and non-university hospitals and private practices in Germany. Clin Oral Investig. 2021; 26(1):911-919. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-021-04073-6. View

15.

Keith R, Crosson J, OMalley A, Cromp D, Taylor E . Using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to produce actionable findings: a rapid-cycle evaluation approach to improving implementation. Implement Sci. 2017; 12(1):15. PMC: 5303301. DOI: 10.1186/s13012-017-0550-7. View

16.

Memon A, Wang E, Hu J, Egger J, Chen X . A review on computer-aided design and manufacturing of patient-specific maxillofacial implants. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2020; 17(4):345-356. PMC: 7175472. DOI: 10.1080/17434440.2020.1736040. View

17.

Anadioti E, Musharbash L, Blatz M, Papavasiliou G, Kamposiora P . 3D printed complete removable dental prostheses: a narrative review. BMC Oral Health. 2020; 20(1):343. PMC: 7694312. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-020-01328-8. View

18.

Meglioli M, Naveau A, Macaluso G, Catros S . Correction to: 3D printed bone models in oral and craniomaxillofacial surgery: a systematic review. 3D Print Med. 2020; 6(1):36. PMC: 7713336. DOI: 10.1186/s41205-020-00088-z. View

19.

Gagnon M, Desmartis M, Labrecque M, Car J, Pagliari C, Pluye P . Systematic review of factors influencing the adoption of information and communication technologies by healthcare professionals. J Med Syst. 2010; 36(1):241-77. PMC: 4011799. DOI: 10.1007/s10916-010-9473-4. View