IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jmathe/v8y2020i12p2121-d451849.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Fuzzy Multicriteria Decision Mapping to Evaluate Implant Design for Maxillofacial Reconstruction

Author

Listed:
  • Khaja Moiduddin

    (Advanced Manufacturing Institute, King Saud University, Riyadh 11421, Saudi Arabia)

  • Syed Hammad Mian

    (Advanced Manufacturing Institute, King Saud University, Riyadh 11421, Saudi Arabia)

  • Usama Umer

    (Advanced Manufacturing Institute, King Saud University, Riyadh 11421, Saudi Arabia)

  • Hisham Alkhalefah

    (Advanced Manufacturing Institute, King Saud University, Riyadh 11421, Saudi Arabia)

  • Abdul Sayeed

    (Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering, King Saud University, Riyadh 11421, Saudi Arabia)

Abstract

Technological advancements in healthcare influence medical practitioners as much as they impact the routine lives of the patients. The mandible reconstruction, which constitutes an important branch in facioplasty, has been a challenging task for medical professionals. As part of scientific innovation, tailor-made implants are valuable for sustaining and regenerating facial anatomy, as well as preserving the natural appearance. The challenge of choosing an acceptable implant design is a tedious process due to the growing number of designs with conspicuous effectiveness. The design should be agreeable, easy-to-design, sustainable, cost-effective, and undemanding for manufacturing. The optimal implant design can efficiently and effectively recover the structure and morphology of the flawed region. Evidently, among the many variants, the choice of appropriate design is one of the prevalent implant design problems and is still under consideration in most studies. This work is focused on the multiattribute decision-making (MCDM) approach to choosing the most effective implant design. The prevalence of subjectivity in decision-making and the presence of inconsistency from multiple sources emphasize the strategies that must take ambiguity and vagueness into account. An integrated MCDM methodology, assimilating two modern and popular techniques is adopted in this work. The preferred approach implements the Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process based on the trapezoidal fuzzy number to extract the criteria weights in decision mapping and the Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution and VIKOR to assess design choices. A two-stage mechanism is the cornerstone of the established methodology. The first stage analyses the criteria from the point of view of the designer, the context of fabrication, and consumer experience. The second stage identifies the most viable and feasible design. The procedure applied in this analysis can be considered to choose the optimal implant design and to decide on areas of improvement that ensure greater patient experience.

Suggested Citation

  • Khaja Moiduddin & Syed Hammad Mian & Usama Umer & Hisham Alkhalefah & Abdul Sayeed, 2020. "Fuzzy Multicriteria Decision Mapping to Evaluate Implant Design for Maxillofacial Reconstruction," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-33, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:8:y:2020:i:12:p:2121-:d:451849
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/8/12/2121/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/8/12/2121/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bentes, Alexandre Veronese & Carneiro, Jorge & da Silva, Jorge Ferreira & Kimura, Herbert, 2012. "Multidimensional assessment of organizational performance: Integrating BSC and AHP," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 65(12), pages 1790-1799.
    2. Hajkowicz, Stefan & Higgins, Andrew, 2008. "A comparison of multiple criteria analysis techniques for water resource management," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 184(1), pages 255-265, January.
    3. Brailsford, S.C. & Harper, P.R. & Sykes, J., 2012. "Incorporating human behaviour in simulation models of screening for breast cancer," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 219(3), pages 491-507.
    4. Opricovic, Serafim & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2004. "Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 156(2), pages 445-455, July.
    5. Chang, Da-Yong, 1996. "Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 95(3), pages 649-655, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Syed Hammad Mian & Khaja Moiduddin & Hisham Alkhalefah & Mustufa Haider Abidi & Faraz Ahmed & Faraz Hussain Hashmi, 2023. "Mechanisms for Choosing PV Locations That Allow for the Most Sustainable Usage of Solar Energy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-24, February.
    2. Abbas Keramati & Fatemeh Shapouri, 2016. "Multidimensional appraisal of customer relationship management: integrating balanced scorecard and multi criteria decision making approaches," Information Systems and e-Business Management, Springer, vol. 14(2), pages 217-251, May.
    3. Lupo, Toni, 2015. "Fuzzy ServPerf model combined with ELECTRE III to comparatively evaluate service quality of international airports in Sicily," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 249-259.
    4. José Ribas, 2014. "An Assessment of Conflicting Intentions in the Use of Multipurpose Water Reservoirs," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 28(12), pages 3989-4000, September.
    5. Concetta Manuela La Fata & Toni Lupo & Tommaso Piazza, 2019. "Service quality benchmarking via a novel approach based on fuzzy ELECTRE III and IPA: an empirical case involving the Italian public healthcare context," Health Care Management Science, Springer, vol. 22(1), pages 106-120, March.
    6. Hassan Hashemi & Jalal Bazargan & S. Mousavi, 2013. "A Compromise Ratio Method with an Application to Water Resources Management: An Intuitionistic Fuzzy Set," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 27(7), pages 2029-2051, May.
    7. Francesco Ciardiello & Andrea Genovese, 2023. "A comparison between TOPSIS and SAW methods," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 325(2), pages 967-994, June.
    8. Thomas L. Saaty & Daji Ergu, 2015. "When is a Decision-Making Method Trustworthy? Criteria for Evaluating Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 14(06), pages 1171-1187, November.
    9. Mulliner, Emma & Malys, Naglis & Maliene, Vida, 2016. "Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for the assessment of sustainable housing affordability," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 59(PB), pages 146-156.
    10. Behrooz Noori, 2014. "Prioritizing strategic business units in the face of innovation performance: Combining fuzzy AHP and BSC," Proceedings of International Academic Conferences 0802059, International Institute of Social and Economic Sciences.
    11. Ateekh Ur Rehman & Syed Hammad Mian & Usama Umer & Yusuf Siraj Usmani, 2019. "Strategic Outcome Using Fuzzy-AHP-Based Decision Approach for Sustainable Manufacturing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(21), pages 1-22, October.
    12. Osman Taylan & Rami Alamoudi & Mohammad Kabli & Alawi AlJifri & Fares Ramzi & Enrique Herrera-Viedma, 2020. "Assessment of Energy Systems Using Extended Fuzzy AHP, Fuzzy VIKOR, and TOPSIS Approaches to Manage Non-Cooperative Opinions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-27, March.
    13. Nastaran Chitsaz & Mohammad Banihabib, 2015. "Comparison of Different Multi Criteria Decision-Making Models in Prioritizing Flood Management Alternatives," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 29(8), pages 2503-2525, June.
    14. Kaya, Tolga & Kahraman, Cengiz, 2010. "Multicriteria renewable energy planning using an integrated fuzzy VIKOR & AHP methodology: The case of Istanbul," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 35(6), pages 2517-2527.
    15. Eduardo Fernandez & Jorge Navarro & Rafael Olmedo, 2018. "Characterization of the Effectiveness of Several Outranking-Based Multi-Criteria Sorting Methods," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(04), pages 1047-1084, July.
    16. Alireza Valipour & Hadi Sarvari & Jolanta Tamošaitiene, 2018. "Risk Assessment in PPP Projects by Applying Different MCDM Methods and Comparative Results Analysis," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-17, December.
    17. Manik Chandra Das & Abanish Pandey & Arun Kumar Mahato & Rajnish Kumar Singh, 2019. "Comparative performance of electric vehicles using evaluation of mixed data," OPSEARCH, Springer;Operational Research Society of India, vol. 56(3), pages 1067-1090, September.
    18. Hongping Wang & Xi Lu & Yuxian Du & Chenwei Zhang & Rehan Sadiq & Yong Deng, 2017. "Fault tree analysis based on TOPSIS and triangular fuzzy number," International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management, Springer;The Society for Reliability, Engineering Quality and Operations Management (SREQOM),India, and Division of Operation and Maintenance, Lulea University of Technology, Sweden, vol. 8(4), pages 2064-2070, December.
    19. Dinçer, Hasan & Hacıoğlu, Ümit & Yüksel, Serhat, 2017. "Balanced scorecard based performance measurement of European airlines using a hybrid multicriteria decision making approach under the fuzzy environment," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 17-33.
    20. Engin ÇAKIR, 2017. "Application of Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods on Six Sigma Projects Selection," Journal of Social and Administrative Sciences, KSP Journals, vol. 4(1), pages 132-138, March.

    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:jmathe:v:8:y:2020:i:12:p:2121-:d:451849. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.