Computer-aided design of facial prostheses by means of 3D-data acquisition and following symmetry analysis

Bockey, Sophia; Berssenbrügge, Philipp; Dirksen, Dieter; Wermker, Kai; Klein, Martin; Runte, Christoph

doi:10.1016/j.jcms.2018.05.020

Cited by 11 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The shape and effects of alloplastic implants can be planned with 3D models [120]. Facial prostheses for defects after resection of the eye and periorbital tissues can be planned and evaluated using facial scans and registration with a best-fit algorithm [128][129][130]. As face scans can be related to intraoral structures and devices [131], the symmetry plane of the face can be correlated to the symmetry plane of a planned dental prosthesis [132].…”

Section: Acquired Structural and Functional Asymmetries Of The Head And Facementioning

confidence: 99%

Symmetry and Aesthetics in Dentistry

Runte

Dirksen

2021

Symmetry

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Animal bodies in general and faces in particular show mirror symmetry with respect to the median-sagittal plane, with exceptions rarely occurring. Bilateral symmetry to the median sagittal plane of the body also evolved very early. From an evolutionary point of view, it should therefore have fundamental advantages, e.g., more effective locomotion and chewing abilities. On the other hand, the recognition of bilaterally symmetric patterns is an important module in our visual perception. In particular, the recognition of faces with different spatial orientations and their identification is strongly related to the recognition of bilateral symmetry. Maxillofacial surgery and Dentistry affect effective masticatory function and perceived symmetry of the lower third of the face. Both disciplines have the ability to eliminate or mitigate asymmetries with respect to form and function. In our review, we will demonstrate symmetric structures from single teeth to the whole face. We will further describe different approaches to quantify cranial, facial and dental asymmetries by using either landmarks or 3D surface models. Severe facial asymmetries are usually caused by malformations such as hemifacial hyperplasia, injury or other diseases such as Noma or head and neck cancer. This could be an important sociobiological reason for a correlation between asymmetry and perceived disfigurement. The aim of our review is to show how facial symmetry and attractiveness are related and in what way dental and facial structures and the symmetry of their shape and color influence aesthetic perception. We will further demonstrate how modern technology can be used to improve symmetry in facial prostheses and maxillofacial surgery.

show abstract

Section: Acquired Structural and Functional Asymmetries Of The Head And Facementioning

confidence: 99%

Symmetry and Aesthetics in Dentistry

Runte

Dirksen

2021

Symmetry

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Clinical indicators (n=22) 8,33,39,44,47,54,57,58,65,69,70,72,73,[79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86][87] Prosthesis survival (n=10) 33,39,57,73,[79][80][81][82][83][84] Prosthesis survival/lifespan (n=9) 33,39,57,73,[79][80][81][82][83] Prosthesis failure (n=1) 84…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Aftercare (n=5) 8,33,44,79,80 Not applicable Complications (n=9) 47,58,65,70,72,73,79,81,85 Not applicable Service delivery (n=1) 86 Costs to the hospital (n=1) 86 Procedural characteristics (n=1) 86 Other objective tools (n=4) 54,69,85,87 Symmetry (n=3) 54,85,87 Function (n=1) 69 Studies may use multiple outcome measures and therefore may be included more than once. Not applicable Single-item satisfaction scale 5,31-33 Self-designed condition-specific questionnaires proposed by authors (or source not referenced) 5,32,[34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51] Condition 55 -Questionnaires for partial and complete denture treatment 2 -Questio...…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Outcome measures in facial prosthesis research: A systematic review

Jablonski

Veale

Coward

et al. 2021

The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Statement of problem. Facial prosthesis research uses a wide variety of outcome measures, which results in challenges when comparing the effectiveness of interventions among studies. Consensus is lacking regarding the most appropriate and meaningful outcome measures to use in facial prosthesis research to capture important perspectives. Purpose. The purpose of the systematic review was to identify and synthesize outcome measures used in facial prosthesis research. Material and methods. Electronic searches were performed in 11 databases (including nonpeer-reviewed literature). The citations were searched, and expert societies were contacted to identify additional studies. Inclusion criteria comprised studies of participants with facial defects who required or had received prosthetic rehabilitation with an external facial prosthesis. Exclusion criteria comprised participants with ocular prostheses, case reports, case series with fewer than 5 participants, laboratory-based studies, and studies published before 1980. Study selection was performed independently by 2 reviewers. Discrepancies were resolved through discussion or by a third reviewer. Outcome measures were synthesized with a categorization approach based on the perspective, theme, and subtheme of the outcome measures. Quality assessment was performed with an appraisal tool that enabled evaluation of studies with diverse designs. Results. Database searching identified 13 058 records, and 7406 remained after duplications were removed. After initial screening, 189 potentially relevant records remained, and 186 full texts were located (98% retrieval rate). After full-text screening, 124 records were excluded. Citation searches and contact with expert societies identified 4 further records. In total, 69 articles (grouped into 65 studies) were included. Studies were categorized as per the perspective of their outcome measures, with the following findings: patient-reported (74% of studies), clinical indicators (34%), clinician-reported (8%), multiple viewpoints (6%), and independent observer-reported (3%). Patient-reported outcome measures included tools to assess satisfaction, quality of life, and psychologic health. Variability in the choice of outcome measures was evident among the studies, with many self-designed, unvalidated, condition-specific questionnaires reported. A greater number of outcome measure themes emerged over time; themes such as service delivery and health state utility have recently been evaluated. Conclusions. Over the past 40 years, facial prosthesis research has focused on patient-reported outcome measures. Outcome measures relating to other perspectives have been used less frequently, although new themes appear to be emerging in the literature. Future research should use outcome measures with appropriate measurement properties for use with facial prosthetics.

show abstract

“…[201,218] For example, polymer jetting rigid materials have recently been used to produce 3D models of the prosthesis to augment the traditional wax modeling and prosthesis fabrication process. [28,216,219] This allows digital design of the prosthesis using CAD software based on 3D patient data to improve the accuracy of the prosthetic. Another polymer, Polyamide (Nylon), has recently been used as the rigid 3D printing material to fabricate a two piece negative mold for an orbital prosthesis [220] and a special biocompatible 3D printable PMMA resin was 3D printed using a material jetting approach to directly print personalized ocular prosthetics which were subsequently hand painted.…”

Section: D Printable Rigid Materialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The future will see 3D printers that can mix materials as desired during fabrication [ 21 ] and those that can 3D print organic semiconductors and piezoelectric polymers for sensing and bionics [ 22–24 ] ( Figure ). This report is focused on polymers for soft tissue, external, personalized, prosthetics with clinical applications for the ear, [ 25 ] nose, [ 26 ] eye, [ 27 ] face, [ 28 ] breast, [ 29 ] and hand. [ 30 ] The characteristics of both traditional and 3D printable polymeric materials, as well as current advanced manufacturing technologies and those in development, are also reviewed.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Past, Present, and Future of Soft‐Tissue Prosthetics: Advanced Polymers and Advanced Manufacturing

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

past 30 years, [12,13] it is only the last decade that has seen its rapid development as part of the fourth industrial revolution. [14] This change in practice is evidenced by the significant fraction of recent literature describing advances in 3D printed prostheses, including technological advances [4,15-18] and clinical reports. [19,20] Further innovations involving collaborations between clinicians, academics, and industry, promise even greater capabilities. The future will see 3D printers that can mix materials as desired during fabrication [21] and those that can 3D print organic semiconductors and piezoelectric polymers for sensing and bionics [22-24] (Figure 1). This report is focused on polymers for soft tissue, external, personalized, prosthetics with clinical applications for the ear, [25] nose, [26] eye, [27] face, [28] breast, [29] and hand. [30] The characteristics of both traditional and 3D printable polymeric materials, as well as current advanced manufacturing technologies and those in development, are also reviewed. The earliest evidence of prosthetics dates back to ≈2300 BC, where Egyptian mummies have been discovered with eye, nose, and genital reconstructions fashioned from plaster packed with mud, sand, linen, butter, or soda (Figure 1). [31] Wood, cloth, natural waxes, resins, and metals were later used as the material of choice for rudimentary prostheses. [32] Prostheses remained relatively unchanged for thousands of years until the 16th century, where prosthetic noses and eyes were made from parchment, wax, wood, hard rubber, gold, silver, and copper. [33] Metals continued as a fundamental material throughout the 19th century, largely due to their ability to be shaped and molded as needed. [34,35] One of the first polymers to be used in prosthetics, poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA), was developed in response to the glass shortages in the World Wars of the 20th Century. [36] This polymer went on to become the most common prosthetic material of the time, and still finds use today in artificial eyes [33] and prosthetic substructures. [37] Further innovations in the 20th century produced many new polymers, such as vinyls, copolymers, plastisols, and one of the most significant materials in prosthetics, silicone. [38] Discovered in the early 1900s by Fredrick Kipping, silicone was first used in prosthetics by George W Barnhart in 1960. [39] This versatile polymer remains a primary prosthetic material today due to its soft tissue-like properties, ease of manipulation, chemical inertness, durability, and excellent biocompatibility. [40,41] The search for alternative materials Millions of people worldwide experience disfigurement due to cancers, congenital defects, or trauma, leading to significant psychological, social, and economic disadvantage. Prosthetics aim to reduce their suffering by restoring aesthetics and function using synthetic materials that mimic the characteristics of native tissue. In the 1900s, natural materials used for thousands of years in prosthetics were replaced by syntheti...

show abstract

Computer-aided design of facial prostheses by means of 3D-data acquisition and following symmetry analysis

Cited by 11 publications

References 16 publications

Symmetry and Aesthetics in Dentistry

Symmetry and Aesthetics in Dentistry

Outcome measures in facial prosthesis research: A systematic review

Past, Present, and Future of Soft‐Tissue Prosthetics: Advanced Polymers and Advanced Manufacturing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About