Printed titanium implants in UK craniomaxillofacial surgery. Part II: perceived performance (outcomes, logistics, and costs). Issue 3 (April 2021)
- Record Type:
- Journal Article
- Title:
- Printed titanium implants in UK craniomaxillofacial surgery. Part II: perceived performance (outcomes, logistics, and costs). Issue 3 (April 2021)
- Main Title:
- Printed titanium implants in UK craniomaxillofacial surgery. Part II: perceived performance (outcomes, logistics, and costs)
- Authors:
- Goodson, A.M.C.
Parmar, S.
Ganesh, S.
Zakai, D.
Shafi, A.
Wicks, C.
O'Connor, R.
Yeung, E.
Khalid, F.
Tahim, A.
Gowrishankar, S.
Hills, A.
Williams, E.M. - Abstract:
- Abstract: This second part explores perceptions and understanding of clinical performance, turnaround, and costs for printed titanium implants or plates in common procedures, evaluating both 'in-house' and 'outsourced' CAD-CAM pathways. A cross-sectional study, supported by the British Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons (BAOMS) and a national trainee-led recruitment team, was conducted over 14 weeks. A total of 132 participants took part (demographic data is reported in Part I). For fibular-flap mandibular reconstruction, most participants (69% - 91%) perceived printed titanium as superior to intraoperatively or preoperatively hand-bent plates for surgical duration, accuracy, dental restorability, and aesthetics. There was less agreement about complications and plate-failure risks. Most perceived printed plates to be superior to traditional wafer-based maxillary osteotomy for surgical duration (61%) and maxillary positioning (60%). For orbital floor repair, most perceived improvements in surgical duration (83%, especially higher-volume operators p=0.009), precision (84%), and ease of placement (69%). Rarely (less than 5%) was any outcome rated inferior to traditional techniques for any procedure. Perceived turnaround times and costs were variable, but the greatest consensus was for two-segment fibular-flap reconstructions and orbital floor repair. Industry estimates were generally consistent between two company representatives, but manufacturing-only costsAbstract: This second part explores perceptions and understanding of clinical performance, turnaround, and costs for printed titanium implants or plates in common procedures, evaluating both 'in-house' and 'outsourced' CAD-CAM pathways. A cross-sectional study, supported by the British Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons (BAOMS) and a national trainee-led recruitment team, was conducted over 14 weeks. A total of 132 participants took part (demographic data is reported in Part I). For fibular-flap mandibular reconstruction, most participants (69% - 91%) perceived printed titanium as superior to intraoperatively or preoperatively hand-bent plates for surgical duration, accuracy, dental restorability, and aesthetics. There was less agreement about complications and plate-failure risks. Most perceived printed plates to be superior to traditional wafer-based maxillary osteotomy for surgical duration (61%) and maxillary positioning (60%). For orbital floor repair, most perceived improvements in surgical duration (83%, especially higher-volume operators p=0.009), precision (84%), and ease of placement (69%). Rarely (less than 5%) was any outcome rated inferior to traditional techniques for any procedure. Perceived turnaround times and costs were variable, but the greatest consensus was for two-segment fibular-flap reconstructions and orbital floor repair. Industry estimates were generally consistent between two company representatives, but manufacturing-only costs differed when using in-house (departmental) designers. Costs and turnaround times are questionable barriers since few understand 'real-world' figures. Designing in-house can dramatically alter costs. Improved accuracy and surgical duration are common themes but biomechanical benefits are less-well understood. This study paints a picture of the potentially routine applications and benefits of printed titanium, capacity for uptake, understanding amongst surgeons, and areas for improvement. … (more)
- Is Part Of:
- British journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery. Volume 59:Issue 3(2021)
- Journal:
- British journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery
- Issue:
- Volume 59:Issue 3(2021)
- Issue Display:
- Volume 59, Issue 3 (2021)
- Year:
- 2021
- Volume:
- 59
- Issue:
- 3
- Issue Sort Value:
- 2021-0059-0003-0000
- Page Start:
- 320
- Page End:
- 328
- Publication Date:
- 2021-04
- Subjects:
- 3D printing -- additive manufacture -- patient-specific implants/PSI -- fibular flap, waferless osteotomy, orbital floor repair
Mouth -- Surgery -- Periodicals
Maxilla -- Surgery -- Periodicals
Face -- Surgery -- Periodicals
Surgery, Plastic -- Periodicals
Dentistry, Operative -- Periodicals
Face -- surgery -- Periodicals
Mouth -- surgery -- Periodicals
Maxilla -- surgery -- Periodicals
Surgery, Oral -- Periodicals
Oral Surgical Procedures -- Periodicals
Dentistry, Operative -- Periodicals
Bouche -- Chirurgie -- Périodiques
Maxillaire supérieur -- Chirurgie -- Périodiques
Face -- Chirurgie -- Périodiques
Chirurgie dentaire -- Périodiques
Dentistry, Operative
Face -- Surgery
Maxilla -- Surgery
Mouth -- Surgery
Surgery, Plastic
Electronic journals
Periodicals
617.52059 - Journal URLs:
- http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/02664356 ↗
http://www.elsevier.com/journals ↗ - DOI:
- 10.1016/j.bjoms.2020.08.088 ↗
- Languages:
- English
- ISSNs:
- 0266-4356
- Deposit Type:
- Legaldeposit
- View Content:
- Available online (eLD content is only available in our Reading Rooms) ↗
- Physical Locations:
- British Library DSC - 2314.200000
British Library DSC - BLDSS-3PM
British Library HMNTS - ELD Digital store - Ingest File:
- 22630.xml