Simultaneous repair of two large cranial defects using rapid prototyping and custom computer-designed titanium plates: a case report

3D printed bone models in oral and cranio-maxillofacial surgery: a systematic review

AIM

This systematic review aimed to evaluate the use of three-dimensional (3D) printed bone models for training, simulating and/or planning interventions in oral and cranio-maxillofacial surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic search was conducted using PubMed® and SCOPUS® databases, up to March 10, 2019, by following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) protocol. Study selection, quality assessment (modified Critical Appraisal Skills Program tool) and data extraction were performed by two independent reviewers. All original full papers written in English/French/Italian and dealing with the fabrication of 3D printed models of head bone structures, designed from 3D radiological data were included. Multiple parameters and data were investigated, such as author's purpose, data acquisition systems, printing technologies and materials, accuracy, haptic feedback, variations in treatment time, differences in clinical outcomes, costs, production time and cost-effectiveness.

RESULTS

Among the 1157 retrieved abstracts, only 69 met the inclusion criteria. 3D printed bone models were mainly used as training or simulation models for tumor removal, or bone reconstruction. Material jetting printers showed best performance but the highest cost. Stereolithographic, laser sintering and binder jetting printers allowed to create accurate models with adequate haptic feedback. The cheap fused deposition modeling printers exhibited satisfactory results for creating training models.

CONCLUSION

Patient-specific 3D printed models are known to be useful surgical and educational tools. Faced with the large diversity of software, printing technologies and materials, the clinical team should invest in a 3D printer specifically adapted to the final application.

Application of three-dimensional prototyping in planning the treatment of proximal humerus bone deformities

Objective

To describe the use of three-dimensional prototyping or rapid prototyping in acrylic resin to create synthetic three-dimensional models in order to promote the understanding of bone deformities of the shoulder.

Methods

Five patients were analyzed between ages of 11 and 73 years old, treated between 2008 and 2013 with glenohumeral deformities that required a more thorough review of the anatomical alterations, for whom three-dimensional prototyping was performed.

Results

Patient 1 was treated conservatively and is awaiting humeral head arthroplasty if symptoms get worse. Patient 2 underwent a valgus proximal humerus osteotomy secured with pediatric locked hip plate according to a prior assessment with prototyping. Patient 3 underwent a disinsertion of the rotator cuff, tubercleplasty and posterior reinsertion of the rotator cuff. Patient 4 underwent an arthroscopic step-off resection, 360-degree capsulotomy, and tenolysis of the subscapularis. Patient 5 underwent a reverse shoulder arthroplasty with an L-shaped bone graft on the posterior glenoid.

Conclusions

Rapid prototyping in acrylic resin allows a better preoperative planning in treatment of bone deformities in the shoulder, minimizing the risk of intraoperative complications in an attempt to improve the results.

Additively manufactured versus conventionally pressed cranioplasty implants: An accuracy comparison

This article compared the accuracy of producing patient-specific cranioplasty implants using four different approaches. Benchmark geometry was designed to represent a cranium and a defect added simulating a craniectomy. An ‘ideal’ contour reconstruction was calculated and compared against reconstructions resulting from the four approaches –‘conventional’, ‘semi-digital’, ‘digital – non-automated’ and ‘digital – semi-automated’. The ‘conventional’ approach relied on hand carving a reconstruction, turning this into a press tool, and pressing titanium sheet. This approach is common in the UK National Health Service. The ‘semi-digital’ approach removed the hand-carving element. Both of the ‘digital’ approaches utilised additive manufacturing to produce the end-use implant. The geometries were designed using a non-specialised computer-aided design software and a semi-automated cranioplasty implant-specific computer-aided design software. It was found that all plates were clinically acceptable and that the digitally designed and additive manufacturing plates were as accurate as the conventional implants. There were no significant differences between the additive manufacturing plates designed using non-specialised computer-aided design software and those designed using the semi-automated tool. The semi-automated software and additive manufacturing production process were capable of producing cranioplasty implants of similar accuracy to multi-purpose software and additive manufacturing, and both were more accurate than handmade implants. The difference was not of clinical significance, demonstrating that the accuracy of additive manufacturing cranioplasty implants meets current best practice.