Comparing the use of conventional and three-dimensional printing (3DP) in mandibular reconstruction.
3D-printing
Conventional surgery
Mandible
Mandibular reconstruction
Reconstructive surgery
Journal
Biomedical engineering online
ISSN: 1475-925X
Titre abrégé: Biomed Eng Online
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101147518
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
19 Mar 2022
19 Mar 2022
Historique:
received:
17
08
2021
accepted:
07
03
2022
entrez:
20
3
2022
pubmed:
21
3
2022
medline:
23
3
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
There are a number of clinical disorders that require mandibular reconstruction (MR). Novel three-dimensional (3D) printing technology enables reconstructions to be more accurate and beneficial to the patient. However, there is currently no evidence identifying which techniques are better suited for MR, based on the type of clinical disorder the patient has. In this study, we aim to compare 3D techniques with conventional techniques to identify how best to reconstruct the mandible based on the clinical cause that necessitates the reconstructive procedure: cancerous or benign tumours, clinical disorders, infection or disease and trauma or injury. PubMed, Scopus, Embase and Medline were searched to identify relevant papers that outline the clinical differences between 3D and conventional techniques in MR. Data were evaluated to provide a clear outline of suitable techniques for surgery. 20 of 2749 papers met inclusion criteria. These papers were grouped based on the clinical causes that required MR into four categories: malignant or benign tumour resection; mandibular trauma/injury and other clinical disorders. The majority of researchers favoured 3D techniques in MR. However, due to a lack of standardised reporting in these studies it was not possible to determine which specific techniques were better for which clinical presentations.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
There are a number of clinical disorders that require mandibular reconstruction (MR). Novel three-dimensional (3D) printing technology enables reconstructions to be more accurate and beneficial to the patient. However, there is currently no evidence identifying which techniques are better suited for MR, based on the type of clinical disorder the patient has. In this study, we aim to compare 3D techniques with conventional techniques to identify how best to reconstruct the mandible based on the clinical cause that necessitates the reconstructive procedure: cancerous or benign tumours, clinical disorders, infection or disease and trauma or injury.
METHODS
METHODS
PubMed, Scopus, Embase and Medline were searched to identify relevant papers that outline the clinical differences between 3D and conventional techniques in MR. Data were evaluated to provide a clear outline of suitable techniques for surgery.
RESULTS
RESULTS
20 of 2749 papers met inclusion criteria. These papers were grouped based on the clinical causes that required MR into four categories: malignant or benign tumour resection; mandibular trauma/injury and other clinical disorders.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The majority of researchers favoured 3D techniques in MR. However, due to a lack of standardised reporting in these studies it was not possible to determine which specific techniques were better for which clinical presentations.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35305669
doi: 10.1186/s12938-022-00989-6
pii: 10.1186/s12938-022-00989-6
pmc: PMC8934485
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
18Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012 Dec;50(8):726-31
pubmed: 22240395
Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2017 Jan;274(1):517-526
pubmed: 27501991
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2006 Mar;64(3):495-502
pubmed: 16487814
Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2012 Jun;36(3):653-9
pubmed: 22395301
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2013 Feb;71(2):e111-9
pubmed: 23164998
Laryngoscope. 2013 Mar;123(3):597-604
pubmed: 23007556
Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis. 2021 Jan;138(1):23-27
pubmed: 32620425
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1997 Nov;55(11):1200-6
pubmed: 9371107
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2009 Oct;108(4):488-95
pubmed: 19699114
Head Face Med. 2014 Oct 23;10:45
pubmed: 25338640
Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015 Jan;53(1):49-53
pubmed: 25305795
J Surg Oncol. 2006 Nov 1;94(6):538-45
pubmed: 17061277
J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2009 Apr;37(3):167-73
pubmed: 19056288
Int J Med Robot. 2011 Jun;7(2):187-92
pubmed: 21412965
J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2016 Nov;44(11):1819-1827
pubmed: 27713054
Int J Med Robot. 2012 Jun;8(2):215-20
pubmed: 22213406
J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2019 Sep;47(9):1387-1397
pubmed: 31350034
J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2018 Sep;46(9):1645-1651
pubmed: 29983306
Arch Plast Surg. 2016 Jan;43(1):3-9
pubmed: 26848439
J Clin Anesth. 2010 Jun;22(4):233-6
pubmed: 20522350
J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2017 Sep;118(4):206-212
pubmed: 28732777
Plast Reconstr Surg. 1989 Sep;84(3):391-403; discussion 404-5
pubmed: 2762397
Biomed Eng Online. 2014 May 23;13:63
pubmed: 24886431
J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2016 Dec;15(4):425-441
pubmed: 27833334
Semin Plast Surg. 2010 May;24(2):188-97
pubmed: 22550439
Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2015 Jun;272(6):1491-501
pubmed: 24816745
Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2012 Aug;20(4):231-6
pubmed: 22894990
J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2018 May;46(5):858-867
pubmed: 29622289
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011 Feb;69(2):432-8
pubmed: 21094572
J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2020 Apr;48(4):405-412
pubmed: 32127304
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2002 Feb;31(1):23-32
pubmed: 11936396
Oral Oncol. 2010 Feb;46(2):71-6
pubmed: 20036611
Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016 Jun;54(5):506-10
pubmed: 26898519
Head Neck. 2014 Dec;36(12):1773-82
pubmed: 24478238
Plast Reconstr Surg. 1989 Jul;84(1):71-9
pubmed: 2734406
Med Biol Eng Comput. 2012 Jul;50(7):743-9
pubmed: 22447348
Head Neck. 1999 Jan;21(1):66-71
pubmed: 9890353
J Craniofac Surg. 2012 Nov;23(6):1592-5
pubmed: 23147284
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008 Aug;134(2):183-92
pubmed: 18675198
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016 Feb;137(2):619-623
pubmed: 26818299
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2013 Aug;71(8):e243-7
pubmed: 23866954
Oral Oncol. 2017 Dec;75:133-139
pubmed: 29224810
Oral Oncol. 2018 Sep;84:52-60
pubmed: 30115476
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020 Jun;78(6):1035.e1-1035.e6
pubmed: 30959007
Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis. 2016 Jun;133(3):175-8
pubmed: 26876743
Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2010 Nov;40(5):669-77
pubmed: 20732826
BMJ. 2021 Mar 29;372:n160
pubmed: 33781993
Chirurg. 2004 Aug;75(8):799-809
pubmed: 15138656
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018 Sep;76(9):1950.e1-1950.e8
pubmed: 29859953
J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2015 Jan;43(1):28-33
pubmed: 25434288
Plast Reconstr Surg. 1986 Apr;77(4):530-45
pubmed: 3952209
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009 Oct;67(10):2115-22
pubmed: 19761905
J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2016 Jul;44(7):795-9
pubmed: 27193477
Surg Oncol. 2020 Sep;34:284-291
pubmed: 32891344
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2005 Jul;63(7):1006-15
pubmed: 16003630
J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2016 Jun;44(6):697-702
pubmed: 27107476
Plast Reconstr Surg. 1990 Oct;86(4):739-43; discussion 744-5
pubmed: 2217590
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009 Aug;67(8):1589-94
pubmed: 19615568
Trials. 2014 Apr 09;15:114
pubmed: 24716651
Plast Reconstr Surg. 1979 Nov;64(5):595-604
pubmed: 388478
J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2012 Jan;40(1):43-6
pubmed: 21296586
J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2019 Jan;47(1):53-59
pubmed: 30470467
Head Neck. 2015 Nov;37(11):1660-4
pubmed: 24954814
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015 Jan;73(1):170-5
pubmed: 25443385
Clin Oral Investig. 2015 Apr;19(3):647-56
pubmed: 25100637
Ann Surg Oncol. 2021 Jan;28(1):363-375
pubmed: 32572853
Radiographics. 2015 Nov-Dec;35(7):1965-88
pubmed: 26562233
Clin Oral Investig. 2007 Mar;11(1):89-92
pubmed: 17009026
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010 Jan;125(1):305-314
pubmed: 20048622