Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35989406›Full record

ArticleOral and maxillofacial surgery2023

A survey regarding the organizational aspects and quality systems of in-house 3D printing in oral and maxillofacial surgery in Germany.

Alexander-N Zeller, Elisabeth Goetze, Daniel G E Thiem, Alexander K Bartella, Lukas Seifert, Fabian M Beiglboeck, Juliane Kröplin, Jürgen Hoffmann, Andreas Pabst

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Oral and maxillofacial surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Alexander-N Zeller *Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany.
Elisabeth Goetze *Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospital Erlangen, Glückstr. 11, 91054, Erlangen, Germany.
Daniel G E ThiemDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Medical Center Mainz, Augustusplatz 2, 55131, Mainz, Germany.
Alexander K BartellaDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospital Leipzig, Liebigstr. 12, 04103, Leipzig, Germany.
Lukas SeifertDepartment of Oral, Cranio Maxillofacial and Facial Plastic Surgery, University Hospital Frankfurt, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60528, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Fabian M BeiglboeckDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospital Münster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, 48149, Munster, Germany.
Juliane KröplinDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Helios Hospital Schwerin, Wismarsche Str. 393-397, 19049, Schwerin, Germany.
Jürgen HoffmannDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospital Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Andreas PabstDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Federal Armed Forces Hospital, Rübenacherstr. 170, 56072, Koblenz, Germany. andipabst@me.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe 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.

methodsAn 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.

resultsSixty-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."

conclusionThe 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.

Indexed as

Printing, Three-DimensionalSurgery, OralCross-Sectional StudiesGermanyHumansSurveys and Questionnaires3D printingDocumentationIn-house manufactureOrganizationProcessQuality controlWorkflow

Identifiers

PMID35989406

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.