3D printing technology has driven major medical, dental, engineering, and education innovations. In oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMFS), 3D printing technology has been implemented to improve precision in treatment planning, increase surgical predictability, reduce operation times, and lower overall costs. Furthermore, 3D printing has opened access to surgical training, facilitated patient-physician relationships, and generated greater surgical outcomes. The aim of this review is to summarize the impact of 3D printing technology in the field of OMFS. We discuss its many applications in the management of maxillofacial trauma and reconstruction, orthognathic surgery, maxillofacial prosthodontics, temporomandibular joint (TMJ) reconstruction, dental implants (3D-printed surgical guides and 3D-printed dental implants), bone tissue engineering for maxillofacial regeneration, clinical education, and patient communication.
3D bioprinting is a powerful enabling technology for the automated fabrication of biomimetic constructs for skin modelling and repair with high resolution and reproducibility. Bioinks, which often comprise the combination of cells and printable biomaterials, are essential for bioprinting 3D cell-laden constructs emulating the architecture, composition and function of native skin. Tissue- and organ-specific decellularized extracellular matrix (dECM) materials are assuming a significant role in bioink design owing their capacity to provide native biophysical and biochemical signals that can elicit distinct cellular responses toward tissue development. Herein, we discuss the rational design of dECM-based bioinks, focusing on processing methods to obtain dECM as well as on bioprinting strategies to engineer 3D constructs for applications in wound healing and in vitro skin modelling.
With the increasing complexity and difficulty of surgical procedures, there is an urgent need for empirical and high-fidelity surgical teaching tools. Whereas in the past, teaching tools included cadavers and animals, today, with the development of three-dimensional (3D) printing technology, the creation of patient-specific organ models is possible. This technology provides an effective solution for preoperative rehearsal, thus providing surgery residents with a more realistic simulation environment. This study aimed to provide an overview of the use of personalized 3D printing in various types of surgery through a scoping review, outline their bottlenecks, and provide an outlook. Significant advancements have been made in 3D-printed gel organ models for surgical applications. However, future advancements require interdisciplinary collaborations, medical–engineering integration and novel techniques. Addressing challenges in preservation, instrument response, ultrasound performance and mechanical properties is crucial. Enhancing these aspects will improve the capabilities of organ models, benefiting both medical practitioners and patients.
Aim: A limited number of studies have attempted to quantify the advantages of using in-house 3D printed models. We designed a pilot study to assess the value of in-house production of patient-specific 3D-printed models in pre-surgical planning. Methods: A 12-question survey was designed and sent to surgeons to assess any purported benefits of 3D-printed anatomic models. In-house 3D model printing was completed on a Stratasys J750 Polyjet printer. Each 3D printed model was delivered to the supervising surgeon days before the procedure for final validation. The 3D models were subsequently utilized in the operating room. Results: A total of 50 surveys were completed for a response rate of 100%. Approximately 94% of the participants strongly agreed that the 3D-printed model was a valuable clinical tool for pre-surgical planning. The majority of the respondents (78%) reported improved surgical efficiency. Conclusion: 3D models is a valuable tool for surgical planning.
3D-printed (3DP) polycaprolactone (PCL)-based scaffolds have gained popularity in the past decade. Despite the wide utility of autografts for bone regeneration in orthopedics practice, 3DP PCL scaffolds may replace this general application. Here we present a 42-year-old patient who had glenohumeral arthritis due to rheumatoid arthritis accompanied by a Walch 3 glenoid defect, and a 19-year-old patient with neglected Galeazzi fracture–dislocation accompanied by a radius non-union. In both patients, a 3DP PCL + hyaluronic acid-based scaffold was used for bone regeneration purposes. The preliminary results showed that the 3DP PCL + hyaluronic acid scaffold provided bone regeneration and may be a promising alternative to autografting for bone regeneration in orthopedic practice.
Aim: Assessment of the imaging properties of 3D-printable materials using dual energy computed tomography (DECT) to match clinical values for imaging phantoms. Methods: 3D-printed samples were imaged using DECT. Regions of interest were analyzed to assess spectral computed tomography (CT) numbers at various energies and measure the electron density (ρe) and effective atomic number (Zeff). Results: Electron density was proportional to the CT number for the materials assessed with Zeff between 6.43 and 7.01. The measured CT number increased with monochromatic energy for all but one sample. Conclusion: A single DECT scan provides valuable information regarding the properties of 3D-printable material due to the ease of measurement of ρe and Zeff. The majority of 3D-printed materials analyzed behaved like adipose tissue across a range of energies in CT imaging.
Aim: Tracheobronchial anatomy for bronchoscopy education is challenging. 3D printing (3DP) is a promising technology to design bronchoscopy simulators. Materials & m ethods: We created a 3DP tracheobronchial model and color-coded the airways to train first-year pulmonary fellows. A pre- and post-test, practical test and post-test questionnaires were used to evaluate the curriculum implementation. Results: For six fellows the pre- and post-test mean score improved from 11.5/22 (SD = ±1.71) to 16.2/22 (SD = ±2.79). Practical testing mean was 34.5/54 (SD = ±5.82). Questionnaires rated the 3DP model favorably. Conclusion: Our pilot curriculum using a color-coded 3DP model demonstrated improvement in airway identification with favorable ratings by fellows. We posit conceptual frameworks in play and how we address them in future models.
Background:Face shields protect healthcare workers (HCWs) from fluid and large droplet contamination. Their effect on smaller aerosolized particles is unknown.Materials & methods:An ultrasonic atomizer was used to simulate particle sizes equivalent to human breathing and forceful cough. Particles were measured at positions correlating to anesthetic personnel in relation to a patient inside an operating theatre environment. The effect of the application of face shields on HCW exposure was measured.Results & Conclusion:Significant reductions in particle concentrations were measured after the application of vented and enclosed face shields. Face shields appear to reduce the concentration of aerosolized particles that HCWs are exposed to, thereby potentially conferring further protection against exposure to aerosolized particles in an operating theatre environment.
Aim: This study was intended to investigate the effect of laser power ratios (LPRs) on the sinterability and sintering performance of selective laser sintering (SLS) mediated 3D prototypes. Materials & methods: Physical mixtures (PMs) containing Kollidon SR (98.75% w/w) and IR-absorbing dye (1.25% w/w) were evaluated for flow characteristics and particle size. The same PMs were subjected to SLS-mediated prototyping at constant printing temperatures (feed bed temperature 30°C and print bed temperature 40°C) over a range of LPRs. Results & conclusion: With favoured particle size and flow properties, this PMs was found to be suitable for SLS-mediated 3D printing. Sinterability and sintering performance were improved incrementally throughout the range of studied LPRs. The best sintering performance in terms of dimensional accuracy and printing yield was achieved at the highest LPR (3.0). Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) depicted topography of cross-sectioned sintered printlets.
Journal of 3D Printing in MedicineAhead of Print InterviewOpen AccessAdvancing the field of 3D bioprinting: an interview with Ibrahim T OzbolatIbrahim T OzbolatIbrahim T Ozbolat *Author for correspondence: E-mail Address: ito1@psu.eduhttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-8328-4528Department of Engineering Science & Mechanics, Biomedical Engineering, Materials Research Institute, The Huck Institutes of Life Sciences, Penn State University, University Park, PA 16802, USAPublished Online:12 Oct 2023https://doi.org/10.2217/3dp-2023-0010AboutSectionsPDF/EPUB ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail Keywords: 3D bioprinting3D modelsbiofabricationclinical translationimmunotherapyBiographyIbrahim T Ozbolat is a Professor of Engineering and Mechanics at The Pennsylvania State University. With significant contributions to the field of 3D bioprinting, Ibrahim's research focuses on the generation of 3D-printed tissues and organs and the development of 3D bioprinting processes and related technologies for a range of purposes including regenerative medicine, drug testing and understanding of diseases. He serves as the principal investigator of the Ozbolat lab, an interdisciplinary lab drawing on experts from various backgrounds including medicine, chemistry, biomedical engineering, industrial engineering and mechanical engineering. This collaborative approach fosters innovation and seeks to address complex challenges in 3D bioprinting.What inspired your interest in bioprinting?I hold dual Bachelor of Science degrees from the Middle East Technical University (Ankara, Turkey), where my primary interest during my degree was manufacturing. During a visit to a center in the university, I came across a 3D printer that was printing inert materials for fabrication of 3D objects, specifically plaster. It was fascinating because it was my first time seeing complex structures being manufactured. So, this sparked my interest to move into 3D printing research, and so I applied for PhD at the University at Buffalo, New York.At the time, the lab that I joined just started tissue engineering work. Combining 3D printing with tissue engineering, we then started bioprinting research there. After completing my PhD, I joined The University of Iowa as an assistant professor, where I established my independent lab and started my career as an independent researcher. We began working on various aspects of bioprinting, developing innovations there including co-axial bioprinting technology which has been translated into the market now. Then in 2015, I joined The Pennsylvania State University.You recently created a 3D-printed breast cancer tumor model. Could you tell us a bit more about this?One of the application areas of bioprinting technologies in our lab is building 3D tissue models, such as cancer. Our primary area of interest lies in breast cancer and understanding how the cancer grows, metastasizes and how it interacts with the immune cells. We have published two articles on the use of 3D-printed cancer models. The first explores perfusion systems through the incorporation of vascularization into 3D models [1] and the second one is without vascularization and a non-perfused model of cancer [2]. We then explore the interactions of the immune cells with the cancer models that we developed, and then we could be able to control several factors with the use of bioprinting technologies.For example, we can control the tumor size and the vascular environments including the proximity of tumor to the blood vessels that we perfuse the immune cells through. We are particularly interested in cancer immunotherapy and the development and translation of these immunotherapies into the clinic, particularly for solid tumors like breast cancer. It is important to understand how the immune cells infiltrate into the cancer microenvironment. We cannot really do this in animal models because they do not really recapitulate the physiology of humans which is why we built these 3D models. Nowadays, we are working with primary tumors from patients, so we make these models with the cells that are obtained from various patients. We are also interested in the role of ageing in cancer development and the response of immunotherapy processes.How do these 3D models provide insights into the tumor in ways that traditional 2D models might not capture in the same way?The traditional 2D models are simple models where you culture the cells on Petri dishes, resulting in a very thin layer of cells. When you consider the cancer microenvironment, it is a complex 3D structure with vascular and immune components. In addition, the tumor itself is heterogenous, composed of multiple different cell types, and recapitulating that complex 3D dynamic microenvironment in 2D models is almost impossible. There are significant differences, which is why we have been developing these 3D models.The National Institutes of Health recently awarded you with a grant to develop technology to expedite the bioprinting process of bones, trachea & organs. Could you tell us a bit more about this?This has been something that we have been working on since 2017/18. We spent time understanding the fundamentals of the technology, which focuses on the 3D bioprintability of tissue spheroids [3,4]. Currently, most of the researchers in the bioprinting community use bioinks where the cells are primarily loaded in hydrogels, which has several limitations. One being that native tissues have a high cell density, which is tough to mimic if you use cell-laden hydrogels.That's why we sometimes use scaffold-free, hydrogel-free systems where we compact the cells into three-dimensional aggregates known as spheroids, utilizing them as building blocks. We then print them next to each other, allowing them to self-assemble to make a larger tissue structure. Currently with all the available technologies in the field, the major problem with this process is that these spheroids are printed individually. So, the process is very slow, and it takes a very long time to create something scalable. To address this issue, we developed a technology that can expedite the process considerably. So, instead of waiting days, you can make structures in an hour. We can use this technology for making trachea and bone.How do you envision an increased utilization of 3D printing in clinical settings?Across the world, there are various ongoing clinical trials exploring the use of bio-printed tissues in clinical settings. A New York-based company called 3DBio Therapeutics conducted a clinical trial exploring the development and implantation of 3D-bioprinted ear tissue for microtia, a condition where the ear grows abnormally [5]. This is a great example of the clinical transition of bioprinted tissues. Hopefully, these clinical trials will open new avenues for other tissues such as skin, cartilage, and bone tissue. Creating these tissues will be relatively straightforward and easy compared with solid organs like the pancreas, lungs and liver, that might prove to be more challenging. The good thing is there are many ongoing projects, and I hope that we will see more clinical translation in the next few years.What are some of the challenges faced in the medical bioprinting field & how do you think they can be overcome?We still have some technical problems that have not been solved yet, like the integration of vascularization. There are tons of efforts going on with vascularization but creating a blood vessel network from arteries and veins, all the way down to capillaries in a 3D complex organ structure is still a challenge. Without proper integration of this complex vascular network system in large scale tissues or organs, we cannot really make scalable solid organs.In the meantime, to make these organs, we need organ-specific cell types. While we have stem cells and primary cells, identifying all the cell types that reside in an organ remains a challenge. For example, if we are making a pancreas, we require beta cells, that we can differentiate from induced pluripotent stem cells. With alpha cells and other pancreatic cells, it is more challenging to obtain all these cells and incorporate them into a system. The lack of all the cell types in a particular organ, and the creation of a 3D-bioprinted perfusable complex multi-scale vascular network remain technical challenges that need to be overcome in the next 5–10 years.Aside from the technical challenges, we have regulatory challenges associated with clinical translation. Sometimes, the regulatory process can take years, but the good thing is we have examples now of bioprinted structures being utilized in clinical trials. They are going to be a great example for regulatory institutions and then that will hopefully make the process certainly easier compared with what it was in the past.What do you think are some of the most promising recent innovations in the field?There are several ongoing developments, and I can say in the last 10 years the field has grown significantly. We have seen groundbreaking developments from various research labs, as well as companies. For example, contributed by multiple research labs including my team, intraoperative bioprinting technology, means that we can use 3D bioprinting directly in surgical settings, has advanced significantly [6]. It is also known as in situ or in vivo bioprinting.We have shown the intraoperative bioprinting of various tissues, organs such as bone, cartilage, muscle, and skin as well as composite versions of bone and skin. This is something that that we [my lab] have contributed significantly to the field [7–9].This holds a lot of potential in translating 3D bioprinting into clinics, where we will see that operating rooms have bioprinters that the surgeons can fix or repair the body parts via the intraoperative bioprinting technology.In addition, we have also seen various tissue types printed using the embedded bioprinting processes [10]. Previously, bioprinting was performed without the use of embedded bioprinting where we used to print the structures in air. Researchers can now create very complex shapes, which was not possible in the past. It also brings us a lot of capabilities in recapitulating the complex shape and geometry of these organs.Where do you think the field of bioprinting will be in the next 10–15 years?This is a question that commonly comes up. I want to give some idea about how the field has evolved so far. From 2000 to 2010, we could mainly print cells. The goal at that time was not primarily to generate tissue immediately, but rather the focus was on printing cells to show that bioprinting was feasible. From 2010 to 2020, significant progress was made where tissues could be printed. So, we have gone from printing cells to printing tissues that are not too complex without multi-scale blood vessels.In the next 10 years, we are going to see more progress, particularly with solid organs such as the pancreas, lungs, heart, and kidney. We are also going to see more efforts in the vascularization and integration of vascularization in 3D-bioprinted solid organs. I do not know if it is going to be done in 10 years, but I can say we are going to make significant progress over the next 10 years in the field. In the meantime, we will see more clinical trials and the translation of 3D-bioprinted tissues, particularly musculoskeletal tissue, in the next 10 years.Financial disclosureIT Ozbolat acknowledges funding from the National Institutes of Health (National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering). The author has no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript apart from those disclosed.Competing interests disclosureIT Ozbolat has an equity stake in Biolife4D and is a member of the scientific advisory board for Biolife4D and Healshape. The author has no other competing interests or relevant affiliations with any organization or entity with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript apart from those disclosed.Writing disclosureNo writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.Interview disclosureThe opinions expressed in this interview are those of Ibrahim T Ozbolat and do not necessarily reflect the views of Future Medicine Ltd.Open accessThis work is licensed under the Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/References1. Dey M, Kim MH, Dogan M et al. Chemotherapeutics and CAR-T cell-based immunotherapeutics screening on a 3D bioprinted vascularized breast tumor model. Adv. Funct. Mater. 32(52), 2203966 (2022).Crossref, CAS, Google Scholar2. Dey M, Kim MH, Nagamine M et al. Biofabrication of 3D breast cancer models for dissecting the cytotoxic response of human T cells expressing engineered MAIT cell receptors. Biofabrication 14(4), 044105 (2022).Crossref, Google Scholar3. Ayan B, Heo DN, Zhang Z et al. Aspiration-assisted bioprinting for precise positioning of biologics. Sci. Adv. 6(10), eaaw5111 (2020).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar4. Ayan B, Celik N, Zhang Z et al. Aspiration-assisted freeform bioprinting of pre-fabricated tissue spheroids in a yield-stress gel. Commun Phys. 3, 183 (2020).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar5. 3DBioTherapuetics. https://3dbiocorp.com/Google Scholar6. Wu Y, Ravnic DJ, Ozbolat IT. Intraoperative bioprinting: repairing tissues and organs in a surgical setting. Trends Biotechnol. 38(6), 594–605 (2020).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar7. Moncal KK, Aydın RST, Godzik KP et al. Controlled co-delivery of pPDGF-B and pBMP-2 from intraoperatively bioprinted bone constructs improves the repair of calvarial defects in rats. Biomaterials 281, 121333 (2022).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar8. Moncal KK, Gudapati H, Godzik KP et al. Intra-operative bioprinting of hard, soft, and hard/soft composite tissues for craniomaxillofacial reconstruction. Adv. Funct. Mater. 31(29), 2010858 (2021).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar9. Moncal KK, Yeo M, Celik N et al. Comparison of in-situ versus ex-situ delivery of polyethylenimine-BMP-2 polyplexes for rat calvarial defect repair via intraoperative bioprinting. Biofabrication 15(1), 015011 (2022).Crossref, Google Scholar10. McCormack A, Highley CB, Leslie NR, Melchels FPW. 3D printing in suspension baths: keeping the promises of bioprinting afloat. Trends Biotechnol. 38(6), 584–593 (2020).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google ScholarFiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Ahead of Print STAY CONNECTED Metrics History Received 26 September 2023 Accepted 26 September 2023 Published online 12 October 2023 Information© 2023 Ibrahim T OzbolatKeywords3D bioprinting3D modelsbiofabricationclinical translationimmunotherapyFinancial disclosureIT Ozbolat acknowledges funding from the National Institutes of Health (National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering). The author has no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript apart from those disclosed.Competing interests disclosureIT Ozbolat has an equity stake in Biolife4D and is a member of the scientific advisory board for Biolife4D and Healshape. The author has no other competing interests or relevant affiliations with any organization or entity with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript apart from those disclosed.Writing disclosureNo writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.Interview disclosureThe opinions expressed in this interview are those of Ibrahim T Ozbolat and do not necessarily reflect the views of Future Medicine Ltd.Open accessThis work is licensed under the Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/PDF download
We aim to improve the residuum health of individuals suffering from lower-limb loss through 'digital twin' computational simulations for the creation of optimized 3D-printed prosthetic attachments. Our objective is to utilize 4D tracking data of various tissue interfaces as a primary input into the digital twin. Dynamic anatomical ultrasonography (DAU) is a novel technique in which synchronized individual transducers are positioned at known locations utilizing a 3D-printed holder. Pulse-echo ultrasound data are recorded and subsequently analyzed, providing plots of tissue interface depths versus recording time. For the scientific validation of the DAU technique, a bespoke 3D-printed phantom twin has been created incorporating replica compartments of soft-tissue interfaces and bone tissue of a healthy thigh. To demonstrate its utility, a preliminary experiment was performed in which the phantom twin was positioned within the DAU device and the replica bone manually traversed randomly; subsequent DAU analysis provided a plot of interface depth versus recording time.
Background:Post-infarct ventricular septal defect (PIVSD) is a serious complication of myocardial infarction. We evaluated 3D-printing models in PIVSD clinical assessment and the feasibility of statistical shape modeling for morphological analysis of the defects.Methods:Models (n = 15) reconstructed from computed tomography data were evaluated by clinicians (n = 8). Statistical shape modeling was performed on 3D meshes to calculate the mean morphological configuration of the defects.Results:Clinicians' evaluation highlighted the models' utility in displaying defects for interventional/surgical planning, education/training and device development. However, models lack dynamic representation. Morphological analysis was feasible and revealed oval-shaped (n = 12) and complex channel-like (n = 3) defects.Conclusion:3D-PIVSD models can complement imaging data for teaching and procedural planning. Statistical shape modeling is feasible in this scenario.
Heart diseases cause over 17.9 million total deaths globally, making them the leading source of mortality. The aim of this review is to describe the characteristic mechanical, chemical and cellular properties of human cardiac tissue and how these properties can be mimicked in 3D bioprinted tissues. Furthermore, the authors review how current healthy cardiac models are being 3D bioprinted using extrusion-, laser- and inkjet-based printers. The review then discusses the pathologies of cardiac diseases and how bioprinting could be used to fabricate models to study these diseases and potentially find new drug targets for such diseases. Finally, the challenges and future directions of cardiac disease modeling using 3D bioprinting techniques are explored.
3D Bioprinting has become a revolutionary tool in the field of tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. Bioprinting industry has seen a tremendous growth in the past decade, with a number of bioink companies and bioprinter companies on the rise. While the growth of bioprinting has been tremendous in terms of research and reach, permeating into life sciences research where two-dimensional cell culture has been the norm, we are yet to witness a commercial success in terms of clinical translation. This perspective article aims to highlight some of the lesser-discussed challenges in the field that are to be overcome to fully translate the use of bioprinting into the clinics and make it a standard of testing in the pharmaceuticals industry.
Aim: To understand the role point-of-care 3D printing is playing in medical device innovation, to articulate tangible and intangible benefits of open social innovation models with internal and external stakeholders, and to identify key considerations to support implementation of 3D printing in public hospitals. Method: Survey on an Australian public health precinct (n = 68). Results: 3D printing influences organizational culture and how users navigate the regulatory framework. Access to on-site 3D printing technology stimulates collaboration and rapid design cycles. Open innovation approaches can help reconcile motivations, as well as social and economic benefits. Staff training, engagement with regulatory reforms and a recalibration of the scope of impact that design thinking can have on medical device innovation projects are needed.
Aim: This study aimed to investigate the optimal computed tomography angiography (CTA) scanning protocols in patients with aortic dissection following thoracic endovascular aortic repair. Materials & methods: A patient-specific aortic dissection model was CT scanned at different tube voltages (80, 100 and 120 kVp) and pitch values (1.2, 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5). Six radiologists and ten radiological technologists were invited to assess images in terms of both image quality and diagnostic value. Results & conclusion: The protocol of 80 kVp with 2.0 pitch resulted in highest subjective scores with lowest dose value compared with other protocols. This study concludes that low tube voltage with high pitch (CTA) using 3D-printed model produces adequate image quality while reducing radiation dose.
The preliminary safety and accuracy of a modified 3D-printed reconstruction plate (3DPRP) for mandible segmental defects were evaluated. Two patients with mandible segmental defects who underwent reconstruction using 3DPRPs were included in the study. No dead space, wound healing failures or fractures were observed. The mean deviations for the two patients were 0.59 and 0.57 mm and the condyle changes were 1.01 and 0.88 mm, respectively. The deviations in the distances between both sides of the mandibles (D1–6) ranged from 0.67 to 1.16 mm and from 0.43 to 0.61 mm for the two patients. The preliminary results show that the modified 3DPRPs are safe and accurate.
Aim: Orofacial clefts are prevalent with limited access to surgical correction. To address this issue our objective was to create a low-cost, high-fidelity, 3D-printed Veau class II cleft palate surgical simulator. Materials & methods: A 3D-printed Veau class II cleft palate simulator was designed using de-identified computed tomography data and computer aided design software. The simulator then underwent multi-institutional expert otolaryngologist validation. Results: The Veau class II cleft palate simulator was rated on a scale of 1–5; 3.8 as a training tool, 4.20 as a competency evaluation tool and 4.20 as a rehearsal tool. The simulator was also rated as very relevant (4.20) and very useful (4.60). Conclusion: The low-cost, high-fidelity Veau II cleft palate simulator was rated highly for physical attributes, realism, performance and usefulness.
Tweetable abstract New material combinations provide potential for major improvements in #3D printing/#AdditiveManufacturing, but how do we get started with them and what are the potential stumbling blocks? Find out here!
Aim: 3D printing is a growing technology with promising applications in orthopedic surgery. However, the utilization of 3D-printed surgical implants has not been fully explored. Materials & methods: One-third tubular plates and cortical screws were printed via fused deposition modeling using four materials: acrylonitrile butadiene styrene, carbon fiber-reinforced polylactic acid, polycarbonate and polyether ether ketone. Plates were analyzed with three-point bending and torque testing, and screws underwent torque, shear and pullout testing. Results: Two-factor Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) demonstrated several significant differences between mechanical profiles for different materials and between designs. Conclusion: The results demonstrate that desktop 3D printers can print biocompatible materials to replicate surgical implant designs at a low cost. However, current materials and structures do not approximate the properties of stainless-steel implants.
