Alexander-N Zeller1, Elisabeth Goetze2, Daniel G E Thiem3, Alexander K Bartella4, Lukas Seifert5, Fabian M Beiglboeck6,7, Juliane Kröplin8, Jürgen Hoffmann9, Andreas Pabst10. 1. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany. 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, Munster, Germany. 7. MAM Research Group, Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Basel, Gewerbestr. 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 Hospital Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. 10. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Federal Armed Forces Hospital, Rübenacherstr. 170, 56072, Koblenz, Germany. andipabst@me.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to get a cross-sectional overview of the current status of specific organizational procedures, quality control systems, and standard operating procedures for the use of three-dimensional (3D) printing to assist in-house workflow using additive manufacturing in oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMFS) in Germany. METHODS: An online questionnaire including dynamic components containing 16-29 questions regarding specific organizational aspects, process workflows, quality controls, documentation, and the respective backgrounds in 3D printing was sent to OMF surgeons in university and non-university hospitals as well as private practices with and without inpatient treatment facilities. Participants were recruited from a former study population regarding 3D printing; all participants owned a 3D printer and were registered with the German Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. RESULTS: Sixty-seven participants answered the questionnaires. Of those, 20 participants ran a 3D printer in-unit. Quality assurance measures were performed by 13 participants and underlying processes by 8 participants, respectively. Standard operating procedures regarding computer-aided design and manufacturing, post-processing, use, or storage of printed goods were non-existent in most printing units. Data segmentation as well as computer-aided design and manufacturing were conducted by a medical doctor in most cases (n = 19, n = 18, n = 8, respectively). Most participants (n = 8) stated that "medical device regulations did not have any influence yet, but an adaptation of the processes is planned for the future." CONCLUSION: The findings demonstrated significant differences in 3D printing management in OMFS, especially concerning process workflows, quality control, and documentation. Considering the ever-increasing regulations for medical devices, there might be a necessity for standardized 3D printing recommendations and regulations in OMFS.
PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to get a cross-sectional overview of the current status of specific organizational procedures, quality control systems, and standard operating procedures for the use of three-dimensional (3D) printing to assist in-house workflow using additive manufacturing in oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMFS) in Germany. METHODS: An online questionnaire including dynamic components containing 16-29 questions regarding specific organizational aspects, process workflows, quality controls, documentation, and the respective backgrounds in 3D printing was sent to OMF surgeons in university and non-university hospitals as well as private practices with and without inpatient treatment facilities. Participants were recruited from a former study population regarding 3D printing; all participants owned a 3D printer and were registered with the German Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. RESULTS: Sixty-seven participants answered the questionnaires. Of those, 20 participants ran a 3D printer in-unit. Quality assurance measures were performed by 13 participants and underlying processes by 8 participants, respectively. Standard operating procedures regarding computer-aided design and manufacturing, post-processing, use, or storage of printed goods were non-existent in most printing units. Data segmentation as well as computer-aided design and manufacturing were conducted by a medical doctor in most cases (n = 19, n = 18, n = 8, respectively). Most participants (n = 8) stated that "medical device regulations did not have any influence yet, but an adaptation of the processes is planned for the future." CONCLUSION: The findings demonstrated significant differences in 3D printing management in OMFS, especially concerning process workflows, quality control, and documentation. Considering the ever-increasing regulations for medical devices, there might be a necessity for standardized 3D printing recommendations and regulations in OMFS.
Authors: Nicolas Martelli; Carole Serrano; Hélène van den Brink; Judith Pineau; Patrice Prognon; Isabelle Borget; Salma El Batti Journal: Surgery Date: 2016-01-30 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: A Louvrier; P Marty; A Barrabé; E Euvrard; B Chatelain; E Weber; C Meyer Journal: J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg Date: 2017-07-18 Impact factor: 1.569
Authors: Ethan L Nyberg; Ashley L Farris; Ben P Hung; Miguel Dias; Juan R Garcia; Amir H Dorafshar; Warren L Grayson Journal: Ann Biomed Eng Date: 2016-06-13 Impact factor: 3.934
Authors: Gunpreet Oberoi; Sophie Nitsch; Michael Edelmayer; Klara Janjić; Anna Sonja Müller; Hermann Agis Journal: Front Bioeng Biotechnol Date: 2018-11-22