Related Experiment Video
Updated: Feb 26, 2026
07:11
Treatment of Facial Deformities using 3D Planning and Printing of Patient-Specific Implants
Published on: May 23, 2020
8.0K
How useful is 3D printing in maxillofacial surgery?
A Louvrier1, P Marty1, A Barrabé1
1Department of oral and maxillofacial surgery, university hospital of Besançon, boulevard Fleming, 25030 Besançon cedex, France; University of Franche-Comté, UFR SMP, 19, rue Ambroise-Paré, 25000 Besançon, France.
Journal of Stomatology, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
|July 23, 2017
Summary
3D printing is increasingly used in maxillofacial surgery (MFS) for applications like surgical guides and anatomical models, improving precision and reducing surgical time. However, regulatory hurdles and costs remain challenges for widespread adoption.
Area of Science:
- Maxillofacial Surgery
- Biomedical Engineering
- Medical Device Manufacturing
Background:
- 3D printing technology has become more accessible, leading to increased applications in maxillofacial surgery (MFS).
- The study reviews the current landscape of 3D printing use in MFS, addressing key aspects of its adoption and implementation.
Purpose of the Study:
- To identify who is using 3D printing in MFS and its routine status.
- To determine the main clinical indications and types of objects printed in MFS.
- To investigate whether objects are manufactured by official medical device (MD) companies or in-house, and to assess advantages and drawbacks.
Main Methods:
- Conducted two bibliographic searches in PubMed using keywords related to maxillofacial surgery and 3D printing/CAD/CAM.
- Selected English or French articles on human clinical use, extracting data on publication details, patient numbers, indications, object types, manufacturing sources, and pros/cons.
Main Results:
- 297 articles from 35 countries were analyzed, covering 2889 patients.
- Top indications include dental implant surgery and mandibular reconstruction, with surgical guides and anatomical models being most common.
- Professional printing accounted for 45% of cases; key benefits were improved precision and reduced surgical time, while drawbacks included cost and manufacturing lead time.
Conclusions:
- Accessible 3D printing enhances preoperative planning and training, with anatomical models not requiring MD regulation.
- Surgical guides and occlusal splints are considered MDs and must adhere to regulations.
- Patient-specific implants remain largely industry-manufactured due to complexity and regulatory demands, with in-house printing facing regulatory limitations and professional printing facing cost/time constraints.
