Patient-specific Implants for Treating Atrophic Mandibles

Shilo, Dekel; Capucha, Tal; Blanc, Ori; Yaacobi, Dafna Shilo; Emodi, Omri; Rachmiel, Adi

doi:10.1097/gox.0000000000004359

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Postprocessing involves compressed air to remove any unconsolidated powder, as well as numerous grinding and/or polishing procedures to adjust surface roughness . Overall, PBF AM processes are great options for printing patient-specific surgical plates, fixation devices, or scaffolds for CMF bone repair. − …”

Section: D Printing Technologiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

3D Printing Applications for Craniomaxillofacial Reconstruction: A Sweeping Review

Slavin,

Ehlen,

Costello

et al. 2023

ACS Biomater. Sci. Eng.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: D Printing Technologiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

3D Printing Applications for Craniomaxillofacial Reconstruction: A Sweeping Review

Slavin,

Ehlen,

Costello

et al. 2023

ACS Biomater. Sci. Eng.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…For example, it has been used in mandibular secondary reconstruction using patient-specific implants following ablation surgery or major trauma. [11][12][13][14] In contrast, using 3D planning and printing for primary care of trauma injuries is scarcely reported. Some surgical teams, having direct access to the manufacturing technology, show the use of patient-specific implants for primary treatment of orbital fractures.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, it has been used in mandibular secondary reconstruction using patient-specific implants following ablation surgery or major trauma. 11–14…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Real-time Reconstruction of Comminuted Mandibular Fractures Using 3D Printing

Shilo,

Capucha,

Krasovsky

et al. 2024

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery - Global Open

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Comminuted fractures of the jaws are complex injuries requiring special attention. In the past, treatment included closed reduction using maxillomandibular fixation. With advancements in technology and fixation systems, open reduction became a prevalent option. These fractures are difficult to reconstruct during the primary treatment phase, thus resulting in higher complication rates. The introduction of three-dimensional (3D) planning and printing brought about superior outcomes, yet these focus on secondary reconstruction due to the need for outsourcing planning and titanium printing. Methods: In this report, we describe real-time in-house 3D planning and printing using computer-assisted design software and a 3D-fused deposition printer for virtual reduction of the comminuted fractures and printing of the reconstructed mandible. Results: Following virtual 3D reduction, the newly created mandibles were 3D printed. The model was then used to preband a reconstruction plate, which in turn was used as a template during surgery for reducing the segments. The process of virtual reduction and printing should take a couple of hours at most. The results of five cases showed good alignment and proper function. Conclusion: Three-dimensional technology can be applied in the everyday primary care treatment protocol of comminuted fractures as an in-house tool which greatly improves both functional and aesthetic outcomes.

show abstract

Revision Surgery With Refixation After Mandibular Fractures

Steffen

Welter

Fischer

et al. 2023

Craniomaxillofacial Trauma & Reconstruction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Study Design Retrospective, descriptive observational study. Objective The need for revision surgery after mandibular fractures is an indicator for severe postoperative complications. This study aimed to characterise this patient cohort, describe solutions to deal with complications and evaluate treatment quality as a risk variable for complications. Methods Patients with revision surgery with refixation after open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) of a mandible fracture were included. Patient- and therapy-specific information were assessed together with postoperative complications. The quality of fixation was evaluated individually by 6 specialists. Interobserver agreement was analysed using Fleiss’ kappa. Results Out of 630 patients, inclusion criteria were met by 17 patients (14 male, 3 female) with an average age of 43.3 (±15.5) years. Complications at the mandible body/angle/symphysis led to refixation in all cases. Main indications for refixation were osteomyelitis (52.9%) or pseudarthrosis (41.2%). Risk factors were drug-related immune suppression, local infection or substance abuse (nicotine, alcohol or drugs). Six patients did not present any of these predictors. Of these, treatment of 4 patients was rated as not in accordance to the AO principles. The interrater reliability of treatment quality assessments was .239. Conclusions Patients with risk factors need to be carefully observed perioperatively after ORIF of mandibular fractures and treatments need to be adapted to these patients. Discrepancies of treatments to common guidelines may also be an independent predictor for treatment failure in patients without risk factors. Current treatment guidelines should be re-evaluated concerning additional treatment strategies for patients with specific risk factors.

show abstract

Patient-specific Implants for Treating Atrophic Mandibles

Cited by 5 publications

References 12 publications

3D Printing Applications for Craniomaxillofacial Reconstruction: A Sweeping Review

3D Printing Applications for Craniomaxillofacial Reconstruction: A Sweeping Review

Real-time Reconstruction of Comminuted Mandibular Fractures Using 3D Printing

Revision Surgery With Refixation After Mandibular Fractures

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About