IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v17y2020i8p2901-d349043.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

3D-printed Surgical Training Model Based on Real Patient Situations for Dental Education

Author

Listed:
  • Marcel Hanisch

    (Department of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospital Münster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, Building W 30, D-48149 Münster, Germany
    The two authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Elke Kroeger

    (Department of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery, Klinikum Osnabrück, Am Finkenhügel 1, 49076 Osnabrück, Germany
    The two authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Markus Dekiff

    (Department of Prosthetic Dentistry and Biomaterials, University Hospital Münster, Albert-Schweitzer Campus 1, D-48149 Münster, Germany)

  • Maximilian Timme

    (Department of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospital Münster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, Building W 30, D-48149 Münster, Germany)

  • Johannes Kleinheinz

    (Department of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospital Münster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, Building W 30, D-48149 Münster, Germany)

  • Dieter Dirksen

    (Department of Prosthetic Dentistry and Biomaterials, University Hospital Münster, Albert-Schweitzer Campus 1, D-48149 Münster, Germany)

Abstract

Background: Most simulation models used at university dental clinics are typodonts. Usually, models show idealized eugnathic situations, which are rarely encountered in everyday practice. The aim of this study was to use 3D printing technology to manufacture individualized surgical training models for root tip resection (apicoectomy) on the basis of real patient data and to compare their suitability for dental education against a commercial typodont model. Methods: The training model was designed using CAD/CAM (computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing) technology. The printer used to manufacture the models employed the PolyJet technique. Dental students, about one year before their final examinations, acted as test persons and evaluated the simulation models on a visual analogue scale (VAS) with four questions (Q1–Q4). Results: A training model for root tip resection was constructed and printed employing two different materials (hard and soft) to differentiate anatomical structures within the model. The exercise was rated by 35 participants for the typodont model and 33 students for the 3D-printed model. Wilcoxon rank sum tests were carried out to identify differences in the assessments of the two model types. The alternative hypothesis for each test was: “The rating for the typodont model is higher than that for the 3D-printed model”. As the p-values reveal, the alternative hypothesis has to be rejected in all cases. For both models, the gingiva mask was criticized. Conclusions: Individual 3D-printed surgical training models based on real patient data offer a realistic alternative to industrially manufactured typodont models. However, there is still room for improvement with respect to the gingiva mask for learning surgical incision and flap formation.

Suggested Citation

  • Marcel Hanisch & Elke Kroeger & Markus Dekiff & Maximilian Timme & Johannes Kleinheinz & Dieter Dirksen, 2020. "3D-printed Surgical Training Model Based on Real Patient Situations for Dental Education," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(8), pages 1-11, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:8:p:2901-:d:349043
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/8/2901/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/8/2901/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Laura Iosif & Ana Maria Cristina Țâncu & Andreea Cristiana Didilescu & Marina Imre & Silviu Mirel Pițuru & Ecaterina Ionescu & Viorel Jinga, 2023. "Perceptions and Expectations of Academic Staff in Bucharest towards the COVID-19 Pandemic Impact on Dental Education," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(3), pages 1-17, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:8:p:2901-:d:349043. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.