The rise of additive manufacturing for ocular and orbital prostheses: A systematic literature review

Orbital and ocular prosthesis fabrication is traditionally a manual process requiring highly skilled prosthetists practiced in a variety of manual manufacturing techniques and materials. However, as additive manufacturing and digital modelling technologies mature, many of these processes can be digi...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Nicholas Puls, Danilo Carluccio, Martin D. Batstone, James I. Novak
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Elsevier 2021
Materias:	3D printing 3D scanning Artificial eye Facial prosthetic Medical device Medical imaging Medical technology R855-855.5
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/f0c52faa6ce6457d91f694065cf64889
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:f0c52faa6ce6457d91f694065cf64889
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:f0c52faa6ce6457d91f694065cf648892021-11-28T04:39:37ZThe rise of additive manufacturing for ocular and orbital prostheses: A systematic literature review2666-964110.1016/j.stlm.2021.100036https://doaj.org/article/f0c52faa6ce6457d91f694065cf648892021-12-01T00:00:00Zhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266696412100031Xhttps://doaj.org/toc/2666-9641Orbital and ocular prosthesis fabrication is traditionally a manual process requiring highly skilled prosthetists practiced in a variety of manual manufacturing techniques and materials. However, as additive manufacturing and digital modelling technologies mature, many of these processes can be digitised. This systematic review aims to provide an overview of published literature, presenting the trends and common findings that can be used to inform the future research directions of the field. The method follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015. PubMed, ProQuest, Scopus and Web of Science databases were searched for articles published between January 1984 and May 2021. Twenty-three articles met inclusion criteria, the first published in 2004. Over half of the articles were published since 2019. 3D scanning was the most common input for designing a prosthesis, used in 52% of articles (n = 12), followed by CT scans in 35% (n = 8). Fused deposition modelling (FDM) was the dominant additive technology, featured in 39% of articles (n = 9), followed by material jetting (MJ) in 26% of articles (n = 6). 65% of articles (n = 15) used additive manufacturing to create moulds or parts for impressions, while 39% (n = 9) used the printed outcomes in final prostheses. Additive manufacturing is increasingly being investigated for orbital and ocular prostheses; however, the field is dominated by one-off case studies and will require larger studies in order to provide clear evidence for the benefits and limitations reported in the literature.Nicholas PulsDanilo CarluccioMartin D. BatstoneJames I. NovakElsevierarticle3D printing3D scanningArtificial eyeFacial prostheticMedical deviceMedical imagingMedical technologyR855-855.5ENAnnals of 3D Printed Medicine, Vol 4, Iss , Pp 100036- (2021)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	3D printing 3D scanning Artificial eye Facial prosthetic Medical device Medical imaging Medical technology R855-855.5
spellingShingle	3D printing 3D scanning Artificial eye Facial prosthetic Medical device Medical imaging Medical technology R855-855.5 Nicholas Puls Danilo Carluccio Martin D. Batstone James I. Novak The rise of additive manufacturing for ocular and orbital prostheses: A systematic literature review
description	Orbital and ocular prosthesis fabrication is traditionally a manual process requiring highly skilled prosthetists practiced in a variety of manual manufacturing techniques and materials. However, as additive manufacturing and digital modelling technologies mature, many of these processes can be digitised. This systematic review aims to provide an overview of published literature, presenting the trends and common findings that can be used to inform the future research directions of the field. The method follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015. PubMed, ProQuest, Scopus and Web of Science databases were searched for articles published between January 1984 and May 2021. Twenty-three articles met inclusion criteria, the first published in 2004. Over half of the articles were published since 2019. 3D scanning was the most common input for designing a prosthesis, used in 52% of articles (n = 12), followed by CT scans in 35% (n = 8). Fused deposition modelling (FDM) was the dominant additive technology, featured in 39% of articles (n = 9), followed by material jetting (MJ) in 26% of articles (n = 6). 65% of articles (n = 15) used additive manufacturing to create moulds or parts for impressions, while 39% (n = 9) used the printed outcomes in final prostheses. Additive manufacturing is increasingly being investigated for orbital and ocular prostheses; however, the field is dominated by one-off case studies and will require larger studies in order to provide clear evidence for the benefits and limitations reported in the literature.
format	article
author	Nicholas Puls Danilo Carluccio Martin D. Batstone James I. Novak
author_facet	Nicholas Puls Danilo Carluccio Martin D. Batstone James I. Novak
author_sort	Nicholas Puls
title	The rise of additive manufacturing for ocular and orbital prostheses: A systematic literature review
title_short	The rise of additive manufacturing for ocular and orbital prostheses: A systematic literature review
title_full	The rise of additive manufacturing for ocular and orbital prostheses: A systematic literature review
title_fullStr	The rise of additive manufacturing for ocular and orbital prostheses: A systematic literature review
title_full_unstemmed	The rise of additive manufacturing for ocular and orbital prostheses: A systematic literature review
title_sort	rise of additive manufacturing for ocular and orbital prostheses: a systematic literature review
publisher	Elsevier
publishDate	2021
url	https://doaj.org/article/f0c52faa6ce6457d91f694065cf64889
work_keys_str_mv	AT nicholaspuls theriseofadditivemanufacturingforocularandorbitalprosthesesasystematicliteraturereview AT danilocarluccio theriseofadditivemanufacturingforocularandorbitalprosthesesasystematicliteraturereview AT martindbatstone theriseofadditivemanufacturingforocularandorbitalprosthesesasystematicliteraturereview AT jamesinovak theriseofadditivemanufacturingforocularandorbitalprosthesesasystematicliteraturereview AT nicholaspuls riseofadditivemanufacturingforocularandorbitalprosthesesasystematicliteraturereview AT danilocarluccio riseofadditivemanufacturingforocularandorbitalprosthesesasystematicliteraturereview AT martindbatstone riseofadditivemanufacturingforocularandorbitalprosthesesasystematicliteraturereview AT jamesinovak riseofadditivemanufacturingforocularandorbitalprosthesesasystematicliteraturereview
_version_	1718408295662747648

The rise of additive manufacturing for ocular and orbital prostheses: A systematic literature review

Ejemplares similares