ReviewOral and maxillofacial surgery2024
Approaching 3D printing in oral and maxillofacial surgery - suggestions for structured clinical standards.
Review in Oral and maxillofacial surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Redefining Digital Dentistry: Multidisciplinary Applications of 3D Printing for Personalized Dental Care.Cureus · 2025Review
- Qualitative exploration of 3D printing in Swedish healthcare: perceived effects and barriers.BMC health services research · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWith respect to the European Union 2017 amendment of the Medical Device Regulations (MDR), this overview article presents recommendations concerning medical 3D printing in oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMFS).
methodsThe MDR were screened for applicability of the rules to medical in-house 3D printing. Applicable regulations were summarized and compared to the status of medical use of 3D printing in OMFS in Germany. Recommendations were made for MDR concerning medical 3D printing.
resultsIn-house printed models, surgical guides, and implants fall under the category of Class I-III, depending on their invasive and active properties. In-house medical 3D printing for custom-made medical devices is possible under certain prerogatives: (1) the product is not being used in another facility, (2) appropriate quality systems are applied, (3) the reason for omitting commercial products is documented, (4) information about its use is supplied to the responsible authority, (5) there is a publicly accessible declaration of origin, identification, and conformity to the MDR, (6) there are records of manufacturing site, process and performance data, (7) all products are produced according to the requirements proclaimed before, and (8) there is an evaluation of clinical use and correction of possible issues.
conclusionSeveral aspects must be addressed for in house medical 3D printing, according to the MDR. Devising MDR related to medical 3D printing is a growing challenge. The implementation of recommendations in OMFS could help practitioners to overcome the challenges and become aware of the in-house production and application of 3D printed devices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.