How useful is 3D printing in maxillofacial surgery?

• Published in: Journal of stomatology, oral and maxillofacial surgery oral and maxillofacial surgery, 2017-09, Vol.118 (4), p.206-212
• Main Authors: Louvrier, A., Marty, P., Barrabé, A., Euvrard, E., Chatelain, B., Weber, E., Meyer, C.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: 3D printing; Computer-Aided Design; Computer-aided manufacturing; Humans; Mandibular Reconstruction - methods; Maxillofacial surgery; Models, Anatomic; Oral Surgical Procedures - methods; Oral Surgical Procedures - trends; Printing, Three-Dimensional - trends; Review; Surgery, Oral - methods; Surgery, Oral - trends
• ISSN: 2468-7855; 2468-7855
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jormas.2017.07.002

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? 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. 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. 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 m