Refine
Year of publication
- 2020 (3) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (3)
Language
- English (3)
Has Fulltext
- yes (3)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (3)
Keywords
- 3D printing (2)
- 3D rapid prototyping (2)
- dentoalveolar surgery (2)
- oral and maxillofacial surgery (2)
- simulation training (2)
- Biopsy (1)
- Dental implant (1)
- Immunohistochemistry (1)
- Macrophage polarization (1)
- Peri-implantitis (1)
Institute
- Medizin (3)
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.
Objectives: To immunohistochemically characterize and correlate macrophage M1/M2 polarization status with disease severity at peri-implantitis sites.
Materials and methods: A total of twenty patients (n = 20 implants) diagnosed with peri-implantitis (i.e., bleeding on probing with or without suppuration, probing depths ≥ 6 mm, and radiographic marginal bone loss ≥ 3 mm) were included. The severity of peri-implantitis was classified according to established criteria (i.e., slight, moderate, and advanced). Granulation tissue biopsies were obtained during surgical therapy and prepared for immunohistological assessment and macrophage polarization characterization. Macrophages, M1, and M2 phenotypes were identified through immunohistochemical markers (i.e., CD68, CD80, and CD206) and quantified through histomorphometrical analyses.
Results: Macrophages exhibiting a positive CD68 expression occupied a mean proportion of 14.36% (95% CI 11.4–17.2) of the inflammatory connective tissue (ICT) area. Positive M1 (CD80) and M2 (CD206) macrophages occupied a mean value of 7.07% (95% CI 5.9–9.4) and 5.22% (95% CI 3.8–6.6) of the ICT, respectively. The mean M1/M2 ratio was 1.56 (95% CI 1–12–1.9). Advanced peri-implantitis cases expressed a significantly higher M1 (%) when compared with M2 (%) expression. There was a significant correlation between CD68 (%) and M1 (%) expression and probing depth (PD) values.
Conclusion: The present immunohistochemical analysis suggests that macrophages constitute a considerable proportion of the inflammatory cellular composition at peri-implantitis sites, revealing a significant higher expression for M1 inflammatory phenotype at advanced peri-implantitis sites, which could possibly play a critical role in disease progression.
Clinical relevance: Macrophages have critical functions to establish homeostasis and disease. Bacteria might induce oral dysbiosis unbalancing the host’s immunological response and triggering inflammation around dental implants. M1/M2 status could possibly reveal peri-implantitis’ underlying pathogenesis.