Three-dimensional (3D) printing plays a rapidly expanding role in the field of craniomaxillofacial (CMF) surgery; however, the time and costs required to efficiently utilize this technology are highly variable. To better delineate the temporal and financial resources needed to establish an efficient workflow, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies utilizing patient-directed 3D-printed constructs in the setting of CMF surgery.
Methods:
A systematic review was performed using PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase. In total, 1679 articles were screened and 45 met inclusion criteria. Primary outcomes included the costs of 3D-printed constructs and the time required for virtual surgical planning (VSP), 3D printing, surgery, and hospitalization.
Results:
The aggregated data assessed 751 patients, 738 surgeries, and 1136 3D-printed constructs. The most common surgical indication was post-neoplastic reconstruction (n = 304), and the most common surgical procedure was mandibular reconstruction (n = 287). Printed constructs were as follows: contour models (44.1%), guides (30.9%), implants (12.5%), splints (12.1%), and prostheses (0.5%). Printing was the longest contributor to the preoperative workflow, averaging 401.6 minutes, while VSP required, on average, only 98.6 minutes. There was no significant difference in VSP time between constructs printed in-house and those contracted from commercial vendors. However, constructs printed in-house were significantly cheaper than those procured from vendors, averaging $252.20 and $2735.50, respectively (P < .001). Of articles reporting intraoperative time (n = 19), 78.9% reported significant reductions when using 3D-printed constructs.
Conclusion:
3D printing, especially in-house workflows, may reduce costs and improve efficiency for CMF surgery.
AhmedKSIbadHSuchalZAGosainAK.Implementation of 3D printing and Computer-aided design and manufacturing (CAD/CAM) in Craniofacial Reconstruction. J Craniofac Surg. 2022;33(6):1714-1719. doi:10.1097/SCS.0000000000008561
2.
Abd El-GhafourMAboulhassanMAFayedMMS, et al. Effectiveness of a novel 3D-Printed nasoalveolar molding appliance (D-NAM) on improving the maxillary arch dimensions in unilateral cleft lip and palate infants: a randomized controlled trial. Cleft Palate-Craniofacial J. 2020;57(12):1370-1381. doi:10.1177/1055665620954321
3.
ChenJKumarSShallalC, et al. Caregiver preferences for three-dimensional printed or augmented reality craniosynostosis skull models: a cross-sectional survey. J Craniofac Surg. 2022;33(1):151-155. doi:10.1097/SCS.0000000000008134
4.
BauermeisterAJZuriarrainANewmanMI.Three-dimensional printing in plastic and reconstructive surgery: a systematic review. Ann Plast Surg. 2016;77(5):569-576. doi:10.1097/SAP.0000000000000671
5.
JacobsCALinAY.A new classification of three-dimensional printing technologies: systematic review of three-dimensional printing for patient-specific craniomaxillofacial surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;139(5):1211-1220. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000003232
6.
MeglioliMNaveauAMacalusoGMCatrosS.3D printed bone models in oral and cranio-maxillofacial surgery: a systematic review. 3D Print Med. 2020;6(1):30. doi:10.1186/s41205-020-00082-5
7.
MurtezaniISharmaNThieringerFM.Medical 3D printing with a focus on Point-of-Care in Cranio- and maxillofacial surgery. A systematic review of literature. Ann 3D Print Med. 2022;6:100059. doi:10.1016/j.stlm.2022.100059
8.
GRADE Working Group. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2004;328(7454):1490.
BergeronLBonapace-PotvinMBergeronF.Printing in time for Cranio-maxillo-facial trauma surgery: key parameters to factor in. Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr. Published online April 20, 2022. doi:10.1177/19433875221083231
12.
ChengCHChuangHYLinHLLiuCLYaoCH.Surgical results of cranioplasty using three-dimensional printing technology. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2018;168:118-123. doi:10.1016/J.CLINEURO.2018.03.004
13.
CucchiABettiniSCorinaldesiG.A novel technique for digitalisation and customisation of reinforced polytetrafluoroethylene meshes: preliminary results of a clinical trial. Int J Oral Implantol Berl Ger. 2022;15(2):129-146.
14.
CzakóLVavroMDvoranováB, et al. Three-dimensional navigation in maxillofacial surgery - the way to minimize surgical stress and improve accuracy in fibula free flap and Eagle’s syndrome surgical procedures. Acta Chir Plast. 2021;63(3):145-149. doi:10.48095/ccachp2021145
15.
DashCDasukilSBoyinaKKPandaRAhmadSR.A novel prefabricated patient-specific titanium cranioplasty: reconsideration from a traditional approach. Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2022;26(2):223-228. doi:10.1007/S10006-021-00977-5
16.
DesaiJB.Cost-effective technique of fabrication of polymethyl methacrylate based cranial implant using three-dimensional printed moulds and wax elimination technique. J Craniofac Surg. 2019;30(4):1259-1263. doi:10.1097/SCS.0000000000005539
17.
DumasBMNavaALawHZ, et al. Three-dimensional printing for craniofacial surgery: a single institution’s 5-year experience. Cleft Palate-Craniofacial J. 2019;56(6):729-734. doi:10.1177/1055665618798292
18.
DvoracekLALeeJYUnadkatJV, et al. Low-cost, three-dimensionally-printed, anatomical models for optimization of orbital wall reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2021;147(1):162-166. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000007495
19.
El-AshmawiNAFayedMMSEl-BeialyAAttiaKH.Evaluation of the clinical effectiveness of nasoalveolar molding (NAM) using Grayson method versus computer-aided design NAM (CAD/NAM) in infants with bilateral cleft lip and palate: A randomized clinical trial. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2022;59(3):377-389. doi:10.1177/1055665621990152
20.
Garza-CisnerosANGarcía-PérezMMRodriguez-GuajardoWJElizondo-RiojasGNegreros-OsunaAA.Cost-effective solution for maxillofacial reconstruction surgery with Virtual Surgical Planning and 3D printed cutting guides reduces operative time. Plast Surg. 2022. Published online February15, 2022. doi:10.1177/22925503221078692
21.
GuptaSGoilP.Formulating an easy, affordable, and reproducible method for virtual planning and 3D reconstruction: A State Institution's approach for mandibular reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg. 2021;87(1):65-72. doi:10.1097/SAP.0000000000002832
22.
HanSWangHChenJZhaoJZhongH.Application effect of computer-aided design combined with three-dimensional printing technology in autologous tooth transplantation: a retrospective cohort study. BMC Oral Health. 2022;22(1):1-8. doi:10.1186/s12903-021-02030-z
23.
JacekBMaciejPTomaszP, et al. 3D printed models in mandibular reconstruction with bony free flaps. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2018;29(3):23. doi:10.1007/S10856-018-6029-5
24.
JainRMahendruSAggarwalA, et al. Feasibility of customised polymethyl methacrylate implants fabricated using 3D printed flexible moulds for correction of facial skeletal deformities. J Craniofac Surg. 2021;32(6):1981-1985. doi:10.1097/SCS.0000000000007383
25.
KingBJParkEPChristensenBJDanradR.On-Site 3-Dimensional printing and preoperative adaptation decrease operative time for mandibular fracture repair. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018;76(9):1950.e1-1950.e8. doi:10.1016/J.JOMS.2018.05.009
26.
KinsmanMAljubooriZBallTNautaHBoakyeM.Rapid high-fidelity contour shaping of titanium mesh implants for cranioplasty defects using patient-specific molds created with low-cost 3D printing: A case series. Surg Neurol Int. 2020;11:288. doi:10.25259/SNI_482_2020
27.
KollerMRafterDShokGMurphySKiaeiSSamadaniU.A retrospective descriptive study of cranioplasty failure rates and contributing factors in novel 3D printed calcium phosphate implants compared to traditional materials. 3D Print Med. 2020;6(1):14. doi:10.1186/s41205-020-00066-5
28.
LiBZhangLSunHYuanJShenSGWangX.A novel method of computer aided orthognathic surgery using individual CAD/CAM templates: a combination of osteotomy and repositioning guides. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2013;51(8):e239-e244. doi:10.1016/J.BJOMS.2013.03.007
29.
LorLSMassaryDAChungSABrownPJRunyanCM.Cost analysis for in-house versus industry-printed skull models for acute midfacial fractures. Plast Reconstr Surg - Glob Open. 2020;8(5):e2831. doi:10.1097/GOX.0000000000002831
30.
MahendruSJainRAggarwalA, et al. CAD-CAM vs conventional technique for mandibular reconstruction with free fibula flap: a comparison of outcomes. Surg Oncol. 2020;34:284-291. doi:10.1016/J.SURONC.2020.04.012
31.
ManjuVBabuAKrishnapriyaVChandrashekarJ.Rapid prototyping technology for silicone auricular prosthesis fabrication: A pilot study. J Head Neck Physicians Surg. 2021;9(1):35. doi:10.4103/jhnps.jhnps_22_21
32.
MaoZZhangNCuiY.Three-dimensional printing of surgical guides for mandibular distraction osteogenesis in infancy. Medicine. 2019;98(10):e14754. doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000014754
33.
MatsuiCMizunoHRocheN.Use of dental impression silicone to fabricate simple surgical guides in mandibular reconstruction. J Craniofac Surg. 2022;33(1):e28-e30. doi:10.1097/SCS.0000000000007878
34.
MoeJFossJHersterR, et al. An In-House computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing workflow for maxillofacial free flap reconstruction is associated with a low cost and high accuracy. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2021;79(1):227-236. doi:10.1016/J.JOMS.2020.07.216
35.
Morales-GómezJAGarcia-EstradaELeos-BortoniJE, et al. Cranioplasty with a low-cost customized polymethylmethacrylate implant using a desktop 3D printer. J Neurosurg. 2019;130(5):1721-1727. doi:10.3171/2017.12.JNS172574
36.
NumajiriTMoritaDNakamuraH, et al. Using an In-House approach to computer-assisted design and computer-aided manufacturing reconstruction of the maxilla. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018;76(6):1361-1369. doi:10.1016/J.JOMS.2017.11.042
37.
ParkSYHwangDSSongJMKimUK.Comparison of time and cost between conventional surgical planning and virtual surgical planning in orthognathic surgery in Korea. Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019;41(1):35. doi:10.1186/S40902-019-0220-6
38.
RenWGaoLLiS, et al. Virtual Planning and 3D printing modeling for mandibular reconstruction with fibula free flap. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2018;23(3):e359-e366. doi:10.4317/MEDORAL.22295
39.
ResnickCMInversoGWrzosekMPadwaBLKabanLBPeacockZS.Is there a difference in cost between standard and virtual surgical planning for orthognathic surgery?J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016;74(9):1827-1833. doi:10.1016/J.JOMS.2016.03.035
40.
Rodríguez-AriasJPTapiaBPampínMM, et al. Clinical outcomes and cost analysis of fibula free flaps: a retrospective comparison of CAD/CAM versus conventional technique. J Pers Med. 2022;12(6):eng1016022692075. doi:10.3390/JPM12060930
41.
Rogers-VizenaCRSpornSFDanielsKMPadwaBLWeinstockP.Cost-benefit analysis of three-dimensional craniofacial models for midfacial distraction: A pilot study. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2017;54(5):612-617. doi:10.1597/15-281
42.
SaijoHIgawaKKannoY, et al. Maxillofacial reconstruction using custom-made artificial bones fabricated by inkjet printing technology. J Artif Organs. 2009;12(3):200-205. doi:10.1007/S10047-009-0462-7
43.
SainiVGabaSSharmaSKalraPSharmaRK.Assessing the role of virtual surgical planning in mandibular reconstruction with free fibula osteocutaneous graft. J Craniofac Surg. 2019;30(6):e563-e566. doi:10.1097/SCS.0000000000005538
44.
SchneiderDKämmererPWHennigMSchönGThiemDGEBschorerR.Customized virtual surgical planning in bimaxillary orthognathic surgery: a prospective randomized trial. Clin Oral Investig. 2019;23(7):3115-3122. doi:10.1007/S00784-018-2732-3
45.
SchneiderDSancho-PuchadesMSchoberFThomaDHämmerleCJungR.A randomized controlled clinical trial comparing conventional and computer-assisted implant planning and placement in partially edentulous patients. Part 3: time and cost analyses. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2019;39(3):e71-e82. doi:10.11607/prd.4146
46.
SigronGRBarbaMChammartinFMsallemBBergBIThieringerFM.Functional and cosmetic outcome after reconstruction of isolated, unilateral orbital floor fractures (blow-out fractures) with and without the support of 3D-printed orbital anatomical models. J Clin Med. 2021;10(16):3509. doi:10.3390/jcm10163509
47.
SpaasCLenssenO.Economic analysis of a low-cost virtual surgical planning protocol for mandibular reconstruction: a case series. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2019;57(8):743-748. doi:10.1016/J.BJOMS.2019.06.017
48.
TelATunizFFabbroSSembronioSCostaFRobionyM.Computer-guided in-house cranioplasty: establishing a novel standard for cranial reconstruction and proposal of an updated protocol. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020;78(12):2297.e1-2297.e16. doi:10.1016/J.JOMS.2020.08.007
49.
VelascoIVahdaniSRamosH.Low-cost method for obtaining medical rapid prototyping using desktop 3D printing: a novel technique for mandibular reconstruction planning. J Clin Exp Dent. 2017;9(9):e1103-e1108. doi:10.4317/JCED.54055
50.
WilliamsFCHammerDAWentlandTRKimRY.Immediate teeth in fibulas: planning and digital workflow with point-of-care 3D printing. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020;78(8):1320-1327. doi:10.1016/J.JOMS.2020.04.006
51.
WuGXieZShangguanW, et al. The accuracy of a patient-specific three-dimensional digital ostectomy template for mandibular angle ostectomy. Aesthet Surg J. 2022;42(5):447-457. doi:10.1093/asj/sjab330
52.
YangWFChoiWSWongMC, et al. Three-dimensionally printed patient-specific surgical plates increase accuracy of oncologic head and neck reconstruction versus conventional surgical plates: a comparative study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2021;28(1):363-375. doi:10.1245/S10434-020-08732-Y
53.
ZaidMKoayEJBajajN, et al. A prospective parallel design study testing non-inferiority of customized oral stents made using 3D printing or manually fabricated methods. Oral Oncol. 2020;106:104665. doi:10.1016/J.ORALONCOLOGY.2020.104665
54.
ZhuWYChoiWSWongMCMPuJJYangWFSuYX.The Learning Curve of computer-assisted free flap jaw reconstruction surgery using 3D-Printed patient-specific plates: a cumulative sum analysis. Front Oncol. 2021;11:737769. doi:10.3389/fonc.2021.737769
55.
ChenJVDangABCDangA.Comparing cost and print time estimates for six commercially-available 3D printers obtained through slicing software for clinically relevant anatomical models. 3D Print Med. 2021;7(1):1. doi:10.1186/s41205-020-00091-4
56.
BückingTMHillERRobertsonJLManeasEPlumbAANikitichevDI.From medical imaging data to 3D printed anatomical models. PLoS One. 2017;12(5):e0178540. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0178540
57.
NgoTDKashaniAImbalzanoGNguyenKTQHuiD.Additive manufacturing (3D printing): a review of materials, methods, applications and challenges. Compos B Eng. 2018;143:172-196. doi:10.1016/j.compositesb.2018.02.012
58.
ZhaoLPatelPKCohenM.Application of virtual surgical planning with computer assisted design and manufacturing technology to Cranio-maxillofacial surgery. Arch Plast Surg. 2012;39(4):309-316. doi:10.5999/aps.2012.39.4.309
BarrMLHavelesCSRezzadehKS, et al. Virtual surgical planning for mandibular reconstruction with the fibula free flap: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Plast Surg. 2020;84(1):117-122. doi:10.1097/SAP.0000000000002006
61.
HsiehTYSaidMDedhiaRDTimbangMRSteeleTOStrongEB.Assessment of the learning curve for virtual surgical planning in orbital fractures. Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr. 2020;13(3):186-191. doi:10.1177/1943387520923940
62.
AntoniniFBorbaAMPagnoncelliRMHanMMarkiewiczMRMiloroM.Does a learning curve exist for accuracy in three-dimensional planning for maxillary positioning in bimaxillary orthognathic surgery?Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020;49(6):787-793. doi:10.1016/j.ijom.2019.10.005
63.
ChildersCPMaggard-GibbonsM.Understanding costs of care in the operating room. JAMA Surg. 2018;153(4):e176233. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2017.6233
64.
BallardDHMillsPDuszakRJrWeismanJARybickiFJWoodardPK.Medical 3D printing cost-savings in Orthopedic and maxillofacial surgery: Cost Analysis of operating room time saved with 3D printed anatomic models and surgical guides. Acad Radiol. 2020;27(8):1103-1113. doi:10.1016/j.acra.2019.08.011
65.
GleissnerHCastrillon-OberndorferGGehrlichS.Introduction of 3D printing in a german municipal hospital—practice guide for CMF surgery. Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr. Published online September30, 2021. doi:10.1177/19433875211050721
66.
BergeronLBonapace-PotvinMBergeronF.In-house 3D model printing for acute cranio-maxillo-facial trauma surgery: process, time, and costs. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2021;9(9):e3804. doi:10.1097/GOX.0000000000003804
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
