BackgroundFacial mutilation and deformities can be caused by cancer, tumours, injuries, infections, and inherited or acquired deformities and has the potential to degrade one’s quality of life by interfering with fundamental tasks like communication, breathing, feeding, and aesthetics.Depending on the type of defect, producing maxillofacial prostheses for the rehabilitation of patients with various defects can be challenging and complex. The prosthesis is used to replace missing or damaged parts of the cranium and face, like the nose, auricle, orbit, and surrounding tissues, as well as missing areas of soft and hard tissue, with the primary goal of increasing the patient’s quality of life by rehabilitating oral functions such as speech, swallowing, and mastication.Traditional maxillofacial prosthesis impression and fabrication processes include a number of complicated steps that are costly, time-consuming, and uncomfortable for the patient. These rely on the knowledge of the maxillofacial team, dental clinicians, and maxillofacial technician.The foundation of the impression is the keystone for creating a prosthesis. However, this is the most time-consuming and difficult chair-side operation in maxillofacial prosthesis manufacturing since it requires prolonged interaction with the patient. The field of prosthesis fabrication is being transformed by the digital revolution. Digital technology allows for more accurate impression data to be gathered in less time (3 to 5 min) than traditional methods, lowering patient anxiety. Digital impressions eliminate the need for messy impression materials and provide patients with a more pleasant experience. This method bypasses the procedure of traditional gypsum model fabrication. This eliminates the disparity caused by a dimensional distortion of the impression material and gypsum setting expansion. Traditional dental impression processes leave enough room for errors, such as voids or flaws, air bubbles, or deformities, while current technology for prosthesis planning has emerged as an alternative means to improve patient acceptability and pleasure, not only because the end result is a precisely fitted restoration but also because the chair-side adjustments required are reduced.The most frequent approaches for creating 3D virtual models are the following. To begin, 3D scanning is employed, in which the subjects are scanned in three dimensions, and the point cloud data is used to create a virtual digital model.MethodsIt will be a hospital-based randomised control trial, carried out at the Department of Prosthodontics, Sharad Pawar Dental College, Sawangi (Meghe), Wardha, a part of Datta Meghe Institute of Medical Sciences (Deemed University). A total of 45 patients will be selected from the outpatient department (OPD) of the Department of Prosthodontics. All the patients will be provided written consent before their participation in the study.Methodology1. Patient screening will be done, and the patient will be allocated to three techniques that are the conventional manual method, photogrammetry method, and 3D scanning in a randomised manner2. The impression of the defect will be recorded by conventional manual method, photogrammetry method, and 3D scanning3. The defect will be modelled in three ways: first is as per the manual dimension taken on the patient, second is the organisation of photographic image taken with lab standards and third is plotting of point cloud data to generate the virtual 3D model4. For photogrammetric prosthesis design, finite photos/images will be taken at multiple angles to model the 3D virtual design. With the use of minimum photographs, the 3D modelling can be performed by using freeware, and a mould is obtained5. The CAD software was used to design the prosthesis, and the final negative mould can be printed using additive manufacturing6. The mould fabricated by all three methods will be analysed by a software using reverse engineering technologyStudy design: Randomised control trialDuration: 2 yearsSample size: 45 patientsDiscussionRodrigo Salazar-Gamarra1, Rosemary Seelaus, and Jorge Vicente Lopes da Silva et al., in the year 2016, discussed, as part of a method for manufacturing face prostheses utilising a mobile device, free software, and a photo capture protocol, that 2D captures of the anatomy of a patient with a facial defect were converted into a 3D model using monoscopic photogrammetry and a mobile device. The visual and technical integrity of the resulting digital models was assessed. The technological approach and models that resulted were thoroughly explained and evaluated for technical and clinical value.Marta Revilla-León, Wael Att, and Dr Med Dent et al. (2020) used a coordinate measuring equipment which was used to assess the accuracy of complete arch implant impression processes utilising conventional, photogrammetry, and intraoral scanning.Corina Marilena Cristache and Ioana Tudor Liliana Moraru et al. in the year 2021 provided an update on defect data acquisition, editing, and design using open-source and commercially available software in digital workflow in maxillofacial prosthodontics.This research looked at randomised clinical trials, case reports, case series, technical comments, letters to the editor, and reviews involving humans that were written in English and included detailed information on data acquisition, data processing software, and maxillofacial prosthetic part design.Trial registrationCTRI/2022/08/044524. Registered on September 16, 2022
Read full abstract
Dec 30, 2022
Enes Ergün + 1
Open Access
