2020, Volume 6, Issue 11
Engineering >> 2020, Volume 6, Issue 11 doi: 10.1016/j.eng.2020.02.019
A Systematic Approach for Making 3D-Printed Patient-Specific Implants for Craniomaxillofacial Reconstruction
a Shien-Ming Wu School of Intelligent Engineering, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou 511442, China
b Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong 999077, China
c Foshan Angels Biotechnology Co., Ltd., Foshan 528200, China
Next Previous
Abstract
Craniomaxillofacial reconstruction implants, which are extensively used in head and neck surgery, are conventionally made in standardized forms. During surgery, the implant must be bended manually to match the anatomy of the individual bones. The bending process is time-consuming, especially for inexperienced surgeons. Moreover, repetitive bending may induce undesirable internal stress concentration, resulting in fatigue under masticatory loading in vivo and causing various complications such as implant fracture, screw loosening, and bone resorption. There have been reports on the use of patient-specific 3D-printed implants for craniomaxillofacial reconstruction, although few reports have considered implant quality. In this paper, we present a systematic approach for making 3D-printed patient-specific surgical implants for craniomaxillofacial reconstruction. The approach consists of three parts: First, an easy-touse design module is developed using Solidworks® software, which helps surgeons to design the implants and the axillary fixtures for surgery. Design engineers can then carry out the detailed design and use finite-element simulation (FEM) to optimize the design. Second, the fabrication process is carried out in three steps: ① testing the quality of the powder; ② setting up the appropriate process parameters and running the 3D printing process; and ③ conducting post-processing treatments (i.e., heat and surface treatments) to ensure the quality and performance of the implant. Third, the operation begins after the final checking of the implant and sterilization. After the surgery, postoperative rehabilitation follow-up can be carried out using our patient tracking software. Following this systematic approach, we have successfully conducted a total of 41 surgical cases. 3D-printed patient-specific implants have a number of advantages; in particular, their use reduces surgery time and shortens patient recovery time. Moreover, the presented approach helps to ensure implant quality.
Figures
Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
References
[ 1 ] Marchetti C, Bianchi A, Mazzoni S, Cipriani R, Campobassi A. Oromandibular reconstruction using a fibula osteocutaneous free flap: four different ‘‘preplating” techniques. Plast Reconstr Surg 2006;118(3):643–51. link1
[ 2 ] Martola M, Lindqvist C, Hänninen H, Al-Sukhun J. Fracture of titanium plates used for mandibular reconstruction following ablative tumor surgery. J Biomed Mater Res B 2007;80B(2):345–52. link1
[ 3 ] Katakura A, Shibahara T, Noma H, Yoshinari M. Material analysis of AO plate fracture cases. J Oral Maxillofac Surgerys 2004;62(3):348–52. link1
[ 4 ] Li J, Sun J, Ma HT. Reconstruction of maxillary and mandibular defect with individual titanium mesh/plate—a clinical study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2003;13(1):17–20. Chinese. link1
[ 5 ] Singare S, Li D, Lu B, Liu Y, Gong Z, Liu Y. Design and fabrication of custom mandible titanium tray based on rapid prototyping. Med Eng Phys 2004;26 (8):671–6. link1
[ 6 ] Li B, Jiang TF, Shen SY, Cai M, Jiang WB, Shen GF, et al. Accuracy of 3D printing individual titanium plates for maxillary repositioning in orthognathic surgery. China J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2016;14(5):419–24. Chinese. link1
[ 7 ] Zhang B, Pei X, Song P, Sun H, Li H, Fan Y, et al. Porous bioceramics produced by inkjet 3D printing: effect of printing ink formulation on the ceramic macro and micro porous architectures control. Compos Part B Eng 2018;155(15):112–21. link1
[ 8 ] Diao J, Ouyang J, Deng T, Liu X, Feng Y, Zhao N, et al. 3D-plotted beta-tricalcium phosphate scaffolds with smaller pore sizes improve in vivo bone regeneration and biomechanical properties in a critical-sized calvarial defect rat model. Adv Healthcare Meter 2018;7(17):1800441. link1
[ 9 ] Rotaru H, Stan H, Florian IS, Schumacher R, Park YT, Kim SG, et al. Cranioplasty with custom-made implants: analyzing the cases of 10 patients. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2012;70(2):e169–76. link1
[10] Rotaru H, Schumacher R, Kim SG, Dinu C. Selective laser melted titanium implants: a new technique for the reconstruction of extensive zygomatic complex defects. Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg 2015;37(1):1. link1
[11] Chaware SM, Bagaria V, Kuthe A. Application of the rapid prototyping technique to design a customized temporomandibular joint used to treat temporomandibular ankylosis. Indian J Plast Surg 2009;42(1):85–93. link1
[12] Park EK, Lim JY, Yun IS, Kim JS, Woo SH, Kim DS, et al. Cranioplasty enhanced by three-dimensional printing: custom-made three-dimensional-printed titanium implants for skull defects. J Craniofac Surg 2016;27(4):943–9. link1
[13] Rana M, Chin SJ, Muecke T, Kesting M, Groebe A, Riecke B, et al. Increasing the accuracy of mandibular reconstruction with free fibula flaps using functionalized selective laser-melted patient-specific implants: a retrospective multicenter analysis. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2017;45(8):1212–9. link1
[14] Wilde F, Kasper R, Sakkas A, Pietzka S, Winter K, Schramm A, et al. Biomechanical in-vitro study concerning the stability of customized CAD/ CAM mandibular reconstruction plates. Comparison of additively and subtractively manufactured as well as hand-bended plates. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2019;48(S1):150–1. link1
[15] Lowther M, Louth S, Davey A, Hussain A, Ginestra P, Carter L, et al. Clinical, industrial, and research perspectives on powder bed fusion additively manufactured metal implants. Addit Manuf 2019;28:565–84. link1
[16] Vahtsevanos K, Triaridis S, Patrikidou A, Uttley D, Moore AJ, Bell A, et al. The Atkinson Morley’s Hospital joint neurosurgical–maxillofacial procedures: cranioplasty case series 1985–2003. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2007;35 (8):336–42. link1
[17] Renishaw plc. LaserImplantTM—case timeline (UK Only) [Internet]. New Mills: Renishaw plc; c2016 [cited 2019 Jun 27]. Available from: http://www. renishaw.com/go/media/pdf/en/3dcb96b444bf4ad6aed3394b779943ec.pdf.
[18] Peel S, Eggbeer D, Burton H, Hanson H, Evans PL. Additively manufactured versus conventionally pressed cranioplasty implants: an accuracy comparison. Arch Proc Inst Mech Eng Part H J Eng Med 2018;232(9):949–61. link1
[19] Lee CH, Chung YS, Lee SH, Yang HJ, Son YJ. Analysis of the factors influencing bone graft infection after cranioplasty. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2012;73 (1):255–60. link1
[20] Jackson TD, Wannares JJ, Lancaster RT, Rattner DW, Hutter MM. Does speed matter? The impact of operative time on outcome in laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 2011;25(7):2288–95. link1
[21] Phan K, Kim JS, Kim JH, Somani S, Di’Capua J, Dowdell JE, et al. Anesthesia duration as an independent risk factor for early postoperative complications in adults undergoing elective ACDF. Global Spine J 2017;7(8):727–34. link1
[22] US Food and Drug Administration. Technical considerations for additive manufactured medical devices—guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration staff [Internet]. Silver Spring: US Food and Drug Administration; 2017 Dec 5 [2019 Jun 27]. Available from: https://www. fda.gov/media/97633/download.
[23] Attar H, Calin M, Zhang LC, Scudino S, Eckert J. Manufacture by selective laser melting and mechanical behavior of commercially pure titanium. Mater Sci Eng A 2014;593:170–7. link1
[24] Gu DD, Hagedorn Y, Meiners W, Meng G, Batista RJS, Wissenbach K, et al. Densification behavior, microstructure evolution, and wear performance of selective laser melting processed commercially pure titanium. Acta Mater 2012;60(9):3849–60. link1
[25] Zhang Y, Xiu P, Jia Z, Zhang T, Yin C, Cheng Y, et al. Effect of vanadium released from micro-arc oxidized porous Ti6Al4V on biocompatibility in orthopedic applications. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces 2018;169(1):366–74. link1
[26] Singh G, Singh H, Sidhu BS. Characterization and corrosion resistance of plasma sprayed HA and HA–SiO2 coatings on Ti–6Al–4V. Surf Coat Tech 2013;228:242–7. link1
[27] Yang Y, Kim KH, Ong JL. A review on calcium phosphate coatings produced using a sputtering process—an alternative to plasma spraying. Biomaterials 2005;26(3):327–37. link1
[28] Bigi A, Boanini E, Bracci B, Facchini A, Panzavolta S, Segatti F, et al. Nanocrystalline hydroxyapatite coatings on titanium: a new fast biomimetic method. Biomaterials 2005;26(19):4085–9. link1
[29] Choudhury P, Agrawal DC. Sol–gel derived hydroxyapatite coatings on titanium substrates. Surf Coat Techno 2011;206(2–3):360–5. link1
[30] Yang CC, Huang CY, Lin CC, Yen SK. Electrolytic deposition of collagen/HA composite on post HA/TiO2 coated Ti6Al4V implant alloy. J Electrochem Soc 2011;158(2):E13–20. link1
[31] Jain P, Mandal T, Prakash P, Garg A, Balani K. Electrophoretic deposition of nanocrystalline hydroxyapatite on Ti6Al4V/TiO2 substrate. J Coat Technol Res 2013;10(2):263–75. link1
[32] Yang WF, Zhang C, Choi W, Zhu W, Li DTS, Chen C, et al. A novel ‘surgeondominated’ approach to the design of 3D-printed patient-specific surgical plates in mandibular reconstruction: a proof-of-concept study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2019;49(1):13–21. link1
[33] Huang Y, Yan Y, Pang X, Ding Q, Han S. Bioactivity and corrosion properties of gelatin-containing and strontium-doped calcium phosphate composite coating. Appl Surf Sci 2013;282:583–9. link1
[34] Osman RB, Swain MV. A critical review of dental implant materials with an emphasis on titanium versus zirconia. Materials 2015;8(3):932–58. link1
[35] Guillaume O, Geven MA, Varjas V, Varga P, Gehweiler D, Stadelmann VA, et al. Orbital floor repair using patient specific osteoinductive implant made by stereolithography. Biomaterials 2020;233:119721. link1
京公网安备 11010502051620号
