An in-vitro study to assess the feasibility, validity and precision of capturing oncology facial defects with multimodal image fusion

Quantitate evaluation of photogrammetry with CT scanning for orbital defect

Facial deformities can be caused by cancer, tumours, trauma, infections, congenital or acquired defects and may lead to alteration in basic functions such as communication, breathing, and mastication and aesthetic thereby affecting quality of life. Traditional processes for manufacturing maxillofacial prostheses involve complicated, time-consuming and tedious processes for the patient and the operator. Impression of the defect area, which is the one of the crucial step in fabrication of prosthesis, is the longest and most difficult process as it requires a long contact with the patient. The digital revolution is now changing the landscape of prosthetic production and making the impression making procedure simpler. Digital technology reduces patient chair side time by providing more accurate display data in less time (3-5 min) than traditional methods. Digital impressions eliminate the need for bulky impression materials and provide a more comfortable patient experience.

Full digital workflow of a 2-piece obturator with polyetherketoneketone in a patient with maxillectomy and trismus: A clinical and laboratory report

The computer-aided design and computer-assisted manufacturing of a 2-piece definitive palatal obturator 3D printed from polyetherketoneketone and 2 acrylic resins with a fully digital workflow are presented for a patient who was diagnosed with adenoid cystic carcinoma and who developed severely limited mouth opening after surgery and radiotherapy. The 18-month follow-up period revealed satisfactory function, tissue compatibility, retention, and esthetics for this patient with a maxillectomy and severe trismus.

IMproving facial PRosthesis construction with contactlESs Scanning and Digital workflow (IMPRESSeD): study protocol for a feasibility crossover randomised controlled trial of digital versus conventional manufacture of facial prostheses in patients with orbital or nasal facial defects

BACKGROUND

Facial prostheses can have a profound impact on patients' appearance, function and quality of life. There has been increasing interest in the digital manufacturing of facial prostheses which may offer many benefits to patients and healthcare services compared with conventional manufacturing processes. Most facial prosthesis research has adopted observational study designs with very few randomised controlled trials (RCTs) documented. There is a clear need for a well-designed RCT to compare the clinical and cost-effectiveness of digitally manufactured facial prostheses versus conventionally manufactured facial prostheses. This study protocol describes the planned conduct of a feasibility RCT which aims to address this knowledge gap and determine whether it is feasible to conduct a future definitive RCT.

METHODS

The IMPRESSeD study is a multi-centre, 2-arm, crossover, feasibility RCT with early health technology assessment and qualitative research. Up to 30 participants with acquired orbital or nasal defects will be recruited from the Maxillofacial Prosthetic Departments of participating NHS hospitals. All trial participants will receive 2 new facial prostheses manufactured using digital and conventional manufacturing methods. The order of receiving the facial prostheses will be allocated centrally using minimisation. The 2 prostheses will be made in tandem and marked with a colour label to mask the manufacturing method to the participants. Participants will be reviewed 4 weeks following the delivery of the first prosthesis and 4 weeks following the delivery of the second prosthesis. Primary feasibility outcomes include eligibility, recruitment, conversion, and attrition rates. Data will also be collected on patient preference, quality of life and resource use from the healthcare perspective. A qualitative sub-study will evaluate patients' perception, lived experience and preference of the different manufacturing methods.

DISCUSSION

There is uncertainty regarding the best method of manufacturing facial prostheses in terms of clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and patient acceptability. There is a need for a well-designed RCT to compare digital and conventional manufacturing of facial prostheses to better inform clinical practice. The feasibility study will evaluate key parameters needed to design a definitive trial and will incorporate early health technology assessment and a qualitative sub-study to identify the potential benefits of further research.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN ISRCTN10516986). Prospectively registered on 08 June 2021,  https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN10516986 .

Accuracy of capturing nasal, orbital, and auricular defects with extra- and intraoral optical scanners and smartphone: An in vitro study

OBJECTIVES

This in vitro study compares the scanning accuracy of various stationary and portable as well as extra- and intraoral devices for capturing oncological defects.

METHODS

A 3D-printed model of a nasal, orbital, and auricular defect, as well as one of an intact auricle, were digitalized (n = 7 per device) with a stationary optical scanner (Pritiface), a portable extraoral optical scanner (Artec Space Spider), two intraoral scanners (Trios 4 and Primescan), and a smartphone (iPhone 11 Pro). For the reference data, the defect models were digitalized using a laboratory scanner (D2000). For quantitative analysis, the root mean square error value for trueness and precision and mean deviations in millimeters were obtained for each defect type. The data were statistically analyzed using two-way ANOVA and Tukey multiple comparison test. For qualitative analysis, a colorimetric map was generated to display the deviation within the defect area and adjacent tissue.

RESULTS

Statistically significant interactions were found in the trueness and precision for defect and scanner type.

CONCLUSION

The Primescan and Artec Space Spider scanners showed the highest accuracy for most defect types. Primescan and Trios 4 failed to capture the orbital defect. The iPhone 11 Pro showed clinically acceptable trueness but inferior precision.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The scanning devices may demonstrate varying accuracy, depending on the defect type. A portable extraoral optical scanner is an universal tool for the digitization of oncological defects. Alternatively, an intraoral scanner may be employed in maxillofacial prosthetics with some restrictions. Utilizing a smartphone in maxillofacial rehabilitation should be considered with caution, because it provides inconsistent accuracy.

Accuracy of capturing oncology facial defects with multimodal image fusion versus laser scanning

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Fabrication of conventional facial prostheses is a labor-intensive process which traditionally requires an impression of the facial defect and surrounding tissues. Inaccuracies occur during the facial moulage because of soft-tissue compression, the patient's reflex movements, or the lack of support for the impression material. A variety of 3D imaging techniques have been introduced during the production of facial prostheses. However, the accuracy of the different imaging techniques has not been evaluated sufficiently in this clinical context.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the difference in accuracy of capturing oncology facial defects with multimodal image fusion and laser scanning against a cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) reference scan.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Ten gypsum casts of oncology facial defects were acquired. To produce reference models, a 3D volumetric scan was obtained using a CBCT scanner and converted into surface data using open-source medical segmentation software. This model was cropped to produce a CBCT mask using an open-source system for editing meshes. The multimodal image fusion model was created using stereophotogrammetry to capture the external facial features and a custom optical structured light scanner to record the defect. The gypsum casts were also scanned using a commercial 3D laser scanner to create the laser-scanned model. Analysis of the best fit of each experimental model to the CBCT mask was performed in MeshLab. The unsigned mean distance was used to measure the absolute deviation of each model from the CBCT mask. A paired-samples t test was conducted to compare the mean global deviation of the 2 imaging modalities from the CBCT masks (α=.05).

RESULTS

A statistically significant difference was found in the mean global deviation between the multimodal imaging model (220 ±50 μm) and the laser-scanned model (170 ±70 μm); (t(9)=2.56, P=.031). The color error maps illustrated that the greatest error was located at sites distant to the prosthesis margins.

CONCLUSIONS

The laser-scanned models were more accurate; however, the mean difference of 50 μm is unlikely to be clinically significant. The laser scanner had limited viewing angles and a longer scan time which may limit its transferability to maxillofacial practice.