Designing 3D prosthetic templates for maxillofacial defect rehabilitation: A comparative analysis of different virtual workflows

Farook, Taseef Hasan; Jamayet, Nafij Bin; Abdullah, Johari Yap; Asif, Jawaad Ahmed; Rajion, Zainul Ahmad; Alam, Mohammad Khursheed

doi:10.1016/j.compbiomed.2020.103646

Cited by 33 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For less complex defects, such as auricular replacement, both the open-source and commercially available software were theoretically capable of producing accurately reproducible prostheses for patients. For more complex defects, the commercially available software had significantly improved abilities [1]. This fact could explain the extensive use of commercially available software (Table 1).…”

Section: Visualization Of the Defect And Design Softwarementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Farook et al [1] compared a digital workflow using open-source software with the same workflow performed with commercially available software for designing five prosthetic templates of maxillofacial defects. The open-source software consisted of Slicer 4.10.2 for CT, MITK workbench (GCRC, Germany) for CBCT and Meshmixer 2.1 (Autodesk Inc., USA) for CAD.…”

Section: Visualization Of the Defect And Design Softwarementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Maxillofacial prosthesis production for the rehabilitation of patients with facial disabilities (congenital or acquired due to malignant disease or trauma) is often challenging and complex, depending on the type of defect. These prostheses are meant to replace parts of the face, such as the nose, ear, eye and surrounding tissues or missing areas of bone and soft tissue, restoring oral functions such as swallowing, speech and chewing, with the main goal being to improve the quality of life of the patient [1].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Digital Workflow in Maxillofacial Prosthodontics—An Update on Defect Data Acquisition, Editing and Design Using Open-Source and Commercial Available Software

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: A maxillofacial prosthesis, an alternative to surgery for the rehabilitation of patients with facial disabilities (congenital or acquired due to malignant disease or trauma), are meant to replace parts of the face or missing areas of bone and soft tissue and restore oral functions such as swallowing, speech and chewing, with the main goal being to improve the quality of life of the patients. The conventional procedures for maxillofacial prosthesis manufacturing involve several complex steps, are very traumatic for the patient and rely on the skills of the maxillofacial team. Computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing have opened a new approach to the fabrication of maxillofacial prostheses. Our review aimed to perform an update on the digital design of a maxillofacial prosthesis, emphasizing the available methods of data acquisition for the extraoral, intraoral and complex defects in the maxillofacial region and assessing the software used for data processing and part design. Methods: A search in the PubMed and Scopus databases was done using the predefined MeSH terms. Results: Partially and complete digital workflows were successfully applied for extraoral and intraoral prosthesis manufacturing. Conclusions: To date, the software and interface used to process and design maxillofacial prostheses are expensive, not typical for this purpose and accessible only to very skilled dental professionals or to computer-aided design (CAD) engineers. As the demand for a digital approach to maxillofacial rehabilitation increases, more support from the software designer or manufacturer will be necessary to create user-friendly and accessible modules similar to those used in dental laboratories.

show abstract

Section: Visualization Of the Defect And Design Softwarementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Visualization Of the Defect And Design Softwarementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Digital Workflow in Maxillofacial Prosthodontics—An Update on Defect Data Acquisition, Editing and Design Using Open-Source and Commercial Available Software

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Available software includes engineering-based computer aided design packages (CAD), [94] or polygon-based computer modeling software designed for freeform medical modeling, movies, and animations. [3,[95][96][97] In some applications, advanced modeling software can automate parts of the prosthetic design process, [98] and even simulate mechanical properties prior to fabrication using finite element analysis. [27] The final digital model is then fabricated using computer aided manufacturing approaches; using either subtractive milling methods [99] or advanced manufacturing approaches, such as 3D printing.…”

Section: From Hand-crafting To Advanced Manufacturingmentioning

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

“…The soft tissue contour is difficult to recreate on 3D (3-dimensional) models created from medical imaging such as cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). Therefore, digital obturators designed from 3D models often have slight to significant morphological differences (Farook et al, 2020). This communication reports on the parametric differences in the conventional and digital obturator workflows and the casts produced from these workflows for a case of large palatal defect.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of the Differences Between Conventional and Digitally Developed Models Used for Prosthetic Rehabilitation in a Case of Untreated Palatal Cleft

Beh

Farook

Jamayet

et al. 2020

The Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The virtual cone beam computed tomography–derived 3-dimensional model was compared with the scanned conventional model used in the fabrication of a palatal obturator for a patient with a large palatal defect. Design: A digitally derived 3-dimensional maxillary model incorporating the palatal defect was generated from the patient’s existing cone beam computerized tomography data and compared with the scanned cast from the conventional impression for linear dimensions, area, and volume. The digitally derived cast was 3-dimensionally printed and the obturator fabricated using traditional techniques. Similarly, an obturator was fabricated from the conventional cast and the fit of both final obturator bulbs were compared in vivo. Results: The digitally derived model produced more accurate volumes and surface areas within the defect. The defect margins and peripheries were overestimated which was reflected clinically. Conclusion: The digitally derived model provided advantages in the fabrication of the palatal obturator; however, further clinical research is required to refine consistency.

show abstract

Designing 3D prosthetic templates for maxillofacial defect rehabilitation: A comparative analysis of different virtual workflows

Cited by 33 publications

References 31 publications

Digital Workflow in Maxillofacial Prosthodontics—An Update on Defect Data Acquisition, Editing and Design Using Open-Source and Commercial Available Software

Digital Workflow in Maxillofacial Prosthodontics—An Update on Defect Data Acquisition, Editing and Design Using Open-Source and Commercial Available Software

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

Evaluation of the Differences Between Conventional and Digitally Developed Models Used for Prosthetic Rehabilitation in a Case of Untreated Palatal Cleft

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About