Additive manufacturing (AM) is rapidly gaining acceptance in the healthcare sector. Three-dimensional (3D) virtual surgical planning, fabrication of anatomical models, and patient-specific implants (PSI) are well-established processes in the surgical fields. Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) has been used, mainly in the reconstructive surgeries as a reliable alternative to other alloplastic materials for the fabrication of PSI. Recently, it has become possible to fabricate PEEK PSI with Fused Filament Fabrication (FFF) technology. 3D printing of PEEK using FFF allows construction of almost any complex design geometry, which cannot be manufactured using other technologies. In this study, we fabricated various PEEK PSI by FFF 3D printer in an effort to check the feasibility of manufacturing PEEK with 3D printing. Based on these preliminary results, PEEK can be successfully used as an appropriate biomaterial to reconstruct the surgical defects in a “biomimetic” design.

With the rapid progression of additive manufacturing and the emergence of new 3D printing technologies, accuracy assessment is mostly being performed on isosymmetric-shaped test bodies. However, the accuracy of anatomic models can vary. The dimensional accuracy of root mean square values in terms of trueness and precision of 50 mandibular replicas, printed with five common printing technologies, were evaluated. The highest trueness was found for the selective laser sintering printer (0.11 ± 0.016 mm), followed by a binder jetting printer (0.14 ± 0.02 mm), and a fused filament fabrication printer (0.16 ± 0.009 mm). However, highest precision was identified for the fused filament fabrication printer (0.05 ± 0.005 mm) whereas other printers had marginally lower values. Despite the statistically significance (p < 0.001), these differences can be considered clinically insignificant. These findings demonstrate that all 3D printing technologies create models with satisfactory dimensional accuracy for surgical use. Since satisfactory results in terms of accuracy can be reached with most technologies, the choice should be more strongly based on the printing materials, the intended use, and the overall budget. The simplest printing technology (fused filament fabrication) always scored high and thus is a reliable choice for most purposes.

Computer-assisted surgery with three-dimensional (3D) printed surgical guides provides more accurate results than free-hand surgery. Steam sterilization could be one of the factors that affect the dimensions of surgical guide resin materials, leading to inaccuracies during surgeries. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of steam sterilization on the dimensional accuracy of indication-specific hollow cube test bodies, manufactured in-house using Class IIa biocompatible resin materials (proprietary and third-party). To evaluate the pre- and post-sterilization dimensional accuracy, root mean square (RMS) values were calculated. The results indicate that, in all the groups, steam sterilization resulted in an overall linear expansion of the photopolymeric resin material, with an increase in outer dimensions and a decrease in inner dimensions. The effects on the dimensional accuracy of test bodies were not statistically significant in all the groups, except PolyJet Glossy (p > 0.05). The overall pre- and post-sterilization RMS values were below 100 and 200 µm, respectively. The highest accuracies were seen in proprietary resin materials, i.e., PolyJet Glossy and SLA-LT, in pre- and post-sterilization measurements, respectively. The dimensional accuracy of third-party resin materials, i.e., SLA-Luxa and SLA-NextDent, were within a comparable range as proprietary materials and can serve as an economical alternative.

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of the intraoperative bending of titanium mesh with the efficacy of pre-contoured “hybrid” patient-specific titanium mesh for the surgical repair of isolated orbital floor fractures. In-house 3D-printed anatomical models were used as bending guides. The main outcome measures were preoperative and postoperative orbital volume and surgery time. We performed a retrospective cohort study including 22 patients who had undergone surgery between May 2016 and November 2018. The first twelve patients underwent conventional reconstruction with intraoperative free-hand bending of an orbital floor mesh plate. The subsequent ten patients received pre-contoured plates based on 3D-printed orbital models that were produced by mirroring the non-fractured orbit of the patient using a medical imaging software. We compared the preoperative and postoperative absolute volume difference (unfractured orbit, fractured orbit), the fracture area, the fracture collapse, and the effective surgery time between the two groups. In comparison to the intraoperative bending of titanium mesh, the application of preformed plates based on a 3D-printed orbital model resulted in a non-significant absolute volume difference in the intervention group (p = 0.276) and statistically significant volume difference in the conventional group (p = 0.002). Further, there was a significant reduction of the surgery time (57.3 ± 23.4 min versus 99.8 ± 28.9 min, p = 0.001). The results of this study suggest that the use of 3D-printed orbital models leads to a more accurate reconstruction and a time reduction during surgery.

Summary: Craniofacial defects often result in aesthetic and functional deficits, which affect the patient’s psyche and wellbeing. Patient-specific implants remain the optimal solution, but their use is limited or impractical due to their high costs. This article describes a fast and cost-efficient workflow of in-house manufactured patient-specific implants for craniofacial reconstruction and cranioplasty. As a proof of concept, we present a case of reconstruction of a craniofacial defect with involvement of the supraorbital rim. The following hybrid manufacturing process combines additive manufacturing with silicone molding and an intraoperative, manual fabrication process. A computer-aided design template is 3D printed from thermoplastics by a fused deposition modeling 3D printer and then silicone molded manually. After sterilization of the patient-specific mold, it is used intraoperatively to produce an implant from polymethylmethacrylate. Due to the combination of these 2 straightforward processes, the procedure can be kept very simple, and no advanced equipment is needed, resulting in minimal financial expenses. The whole fabrication of the mold is performed within approximately 2 hours depending on the template’s size and volume. This reliable technique is easy to adopt and suitable for every health facility, especially those with limited financial resources in less privileged countries, enabling many more patients to profit from patient-specific treatment.

Background: With the rise of new 3D printers, assessing accuracy is crucial for obtaining the best results in patient care. Previous studies have shown that the highest accuracy is achieved with SLS printing technology; however, SLA printing technology has made significant improvements in recent years. Methods: In this study, a realistic anatomical model of a mandible and skull, a cutting guide for mandibular osteotomy, and a splint for orthognathic surgery were replicated five times each using two different 3D printing technologies: SLA and SLS. Results: The SLA group had a median trueness RMS value of 0.148 mm and a precision RMS value of 0.117 mm. The SLS group had a median trueness RMS value of 0.144 mm and a precision RMS value of 0.096 mm. There was no statistically significant difference in RMS values between SLS and SLA technologies regarding trueness. Regarding precision, however, the RMS values for SLS technology were significantly lower in the splint and cutting guide applications than those printed with SLA technology. Conclusions: Both 3D printing technologies produce modern models and applications with equally high dimensional accuracy. Considering current cost pressures experienced by hospitals, the lower-cost SLA 3D printer is a reliable choice for point-of-care 3D printing.