Abstract
The utilization of additive manufacturing (AM) technology for the production of auricular prostheses has been widely acknowledged. However, few studies and case history reports have evaluated the esthetic outcomes of AM prostheses compared to those of conventionally manufactured prostheses. In this case history report, three manufacturing approaches-conventional, indirect, and direct mold preparation-were assessed for their esthetic outcomes in the same patient.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
