Andreas Pabst1, Elisabeth Goetze2, Daniel G E Thiem3, Alexander K Bartella4, Lukas Seifert5, Fabian M Beiglboeck6,7, Juliane Kröplin8, Jürgen Hoffmann9, Alexander-N Zeller10. 1. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Federal Armed Forces Hospital, Rübenacherstr. 170, 56072, Koblenz, Germany. andipabst@me.com. 2. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospital Erlangen, Glückstr. 11, 91054, Erlangen, Germany. 3. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Medical Center Mainz, Augustusplatz 2, 55131, Mainz, Germany. 4. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospital Leipzig, Liebigstr. 12, 04103, Leipzig, Germany. 5. Department of Oral, Cranio Maxillofacial and Facial Plastic Surgery, University Hospital Frankfurt, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60528, Frankfurt am Main, Germany. 6. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospital Münster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, 48149, Münster, Germany. 7. MAM Research Group, Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Basel, Gewerbestrasse 16, 4123, Allschwil, Switzerland. 8. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Helios Hospital Schwerin, Wismarsche Str. 393-397, 19049, Schwerin, Germany. 9. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Clinic Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. 10. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMFS) has undergone pioneering progress through the development of three-dimensional (3D) printing technologies. The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of 3D printing at OMFS university and non-university hospitals and private practices in Germany. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For explorative assessment, a dynamic online questionnaire containing 10-22 questions about the current use of 3D printing and the reasons behind it was sent to OMFS university and non-university hospitals and private practices in Germany by the study group from the German Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (DGMKG). RESULTS: In total, 156 participants responded from university (23 [14.7%]) and non-university hospitals (19 [12.2%]) and private practices without (85 [50.5%]) and with 29 (18.6%) inpatient treatment facility. Highest applications of 3D printing were in implantology (57%), microvascular bone reconstructions (25.6%), and orthognathics (21.1%). Among the participants, 37.8% reportedly were not using 3D printing. Among the hospitals and private practices, 21.1% had their own 3D printer, and 2.5% shared it with other departments. The major reason for not having a 3D printer was poor cost efficiency (37.6%). Possessing a 3D printer was motivated by independence from external providers (91.3%) and rapid template production (82.6%). The preferred printing methods were stereolithography (69.4 %) and filament printing (44.4%). CONCLUSIONS: OMFS 3D printing is established in Germany with a wide range of applications. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The prevalence of 3D printing in hospitals and private practices is moderate. This may be enhanced by future innovations including improved cost efficiency.
OBJECTIVES: Oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMFS) has undergone pioneering progress through the development of three-dimensional (3D) printing technologies. The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of 3D printing at OMFS university and non-university hospitals and private practices in Germany. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For explorative assessment, a dynamic online questionnaire containing 10-22 questions about the current use of 3D printing and the reasons behind it was sent to OMFS university and non-university hospitals and private practices in Germany by the study group from the German Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (DGMKG). RESULTS: In total, 156 participants responded from university (23 [14.7%]) and non-university hospitals (19 [12.2%]) and private practices without (85 [50.5%]) and with 29 (18.6%) inpatient treatment facility. Highest applications of 3D printing were in implantology (57%), microvascular bone reconstructions (25.6%), and orthognathics (21.1%). Among the participants, 37.8% reportedly were not using 3D printing. Among the hospitals and private practices, 21.1% had their own 3D printer, and 2.5% shared it with other departments. The major reason for not having a 3D printer was poor cost efficiency (37.6%). Possessing a 3D printer was motivated by independence from external providers (91.3%) and rapid template production (82.6%). The preferred printing methods were stereolithography (69.4 %) and filament printing (44.4%). CONCLUSIONS: OMFS 3D printing is established in Germany with a wide range of applications. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The prevalence of 3D printing in hospitals and private practices is moderate. This may be enhanced by future innovations including improved cost efficiency.
Authors: Vicknes Waran; Vairavan Narayanan; Ravindran Karuppiah; Devaraj Pancharatnam; Hari Chandran; Rajagopalan Raman; Zainal Ariff Abdul Rahman; Sarah L F Owen; Tipu Z Aziz Journal: J Surg Educ Date: 2013-11-22 Impact factor: 2.891
Authors: Lukas B Seifert; Christopher Langhans; Yakub Berdan; Sophie Zorn; Michelle Klos; Constantin Landes; Robert Sader Journal: Oral Maxillofac Surg Date: 2022-05-20