Filtern
Dokumenttyp
Sprache
- Englisch (4)
Volltext vorhanden
- ja (4) (entfernen)
Gehört zur Bibliographie
- nein (4)
Schlagworte
- 3D printing (2)
- 3D rapid prototyping (2)
- dentoalveolar surgery (2)
- oral and maxillofacial surgery (2)
- simulation training (2)
- Complication management (1)
- Decision (1)
- Fistula (1)
- Flaps (1)
- Grafts (1)
Institut
- Medizin (4)
Background: Recent advances in 3D printing technology have enabled the emergence of new educational and clinical tools for medical professionals. This study provides an exemplary description of the fabrication of 3D‐printed individualised patient models and assesses their educational value compared to cadaveric models in oral and maxillofacial surgery.
Methods: A single‐stage, controlled cohort study was conducted within the context of a curricular course. A patient's CT scan was segmented into a stereolithographic model and then printed using a fused filament 3D printer. These individualised patient models were implemented and compared against cadaveric models in a curricular oral surgery hands‐on course. Students evaluated both models using a validated questionnaire. Additionally, a cost analysis for both models was carried out. P‐values were calculated using the Mann‐Whitney U test.
Results: Thirty‐eight fourth‐year dental students participated in the study. Overall, significant differences between the two models were found in the student assessment. Whilst the cadaveric models achieved better results in the haptic feedback of the soft tissue, the 3D‐printed individualised patient models were regarded significantly more realistic with regard to the anatomical correctness, the degree of freedom of movement and the operative simulation. At 3.46 € (compared to 6.51 €), the 3D‐printed patient individualised models were exceptionally cost‐efficient.
Conclusions: 3D‐printed patient individualised models presented a realistic alternative to cadaveric models in the undergraduate training of operational skills in oral and maxillofacial surgery. Whilst the 3D‐printed individualised patient models received positive feedback from students, some aspects of the model leave room for improvement.
After removal of a dental implant or extraction of a tooth in the upper jaw, the closure of an oroantral fistula (OAF) or oroantral communication (OAC) can be a difficult problem confronting the dentist and surgeon working in the oral and maxillofacial region. Oroantral communication (OAC) acts as a pathological pathway for bacteria and can cause infection of the antrum, which further obstructs the healing process as it is an unnatural communication between the oral cavity and the maxillary sinus. There are different ways to perform the surgical closure of the OAC. The decision-making in closure of oroantral communication and fistula is influenced by many factors. Consequently, it requires a combination of knowledge, experience, and information gathering. Previous narrative research has focused on assessments and comparisons of various surgical techniques for the closure of OAC/OAF. Thus, the decision-making process has not yet been described comprehensively.
The present study aims to illustrate all the factors that have to be considered in the management of OACs and OAFs that determine optimal treatment.
The prevalence of peri-implant diseases around subcrestally placed implants: a cross-sectional study
(2021)
Objectives: To evaluate the prevalence of peri-implant health, peri-implant mucositis or periimplantitis for subcrestally placed implants (1–3 mm) on the short-, medium- and long term.
Material and Methods: Two hundred patients were enrolled in this cross-sectional study that were treated and screened during regular maintenance visits at one university center. A total of 657 implants were evaluated. Peri-implant health and diseases were assessed according to predefined case definitions. Binary logistic regression was used to assess the correlation with local and systemic factors.
Results: After a median function time of 9.36 ± 6.44 years (range: 1–26 years), the prevalence of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis was 66.5% and 15.0%, at the patient level, corresponding to 62.6% and 7.5%, at the implant level, respectively. Peri-implantitis was significantly associated with patients’ history of periodontitis (odds ratio, OR 5.33).
Conclusion: Peri-implant diseases were a common finding around subcrestally placed implants.