Oral surgery

  1. Entering a new dimension
A review of the literature review set out to answer the following questions: Who uses 3D printing in maxillofacial surgery (MFS) and is it routine or not? What are the main clinical indications and what are the kinds of objects used? Are these objects printed by an official medical device (MD) manufacturer or made directly within the department or the lab? What are the advantages and drawbacks? A total of 297 articles from 35 countries were selected as relevant, the most represented country was the People's Republic of China (16%) and 2,889 patients were reported as benefiting from 3D printed objects. The most frequent clinical uses were dental implant surgery and mandibular reconstruction. The most frequently printed objects were surgical guides and anatomic models of which 45% were professionally printed. The main advantages were improvement in precision and reduction of surgical time. The main disadvantages were the cost of the objects and the time taken to manufacture when printed by the industry. The authors conclude that although 3D printed objects are easily available they will never replace a surgeon’s skill and should only be considered as useful tools.

Louvrier A et al. How useful is 3D printing in maxillofacial surgery? J Stomatol Oral Maxillofacial Surg 2017 Jul 18.

Q What are the main advantages to the use of 3D printing in maxillofacial surgery?
A Minimal cost increase and short time to manufacture
B Improvement in precision and reduction of surgical time
C Increased surgical time and boosting fees
D Mainly available in China and cheap

  1. Caution: videos ahead
What is the video content on YouTube related to orthognathic surgery? YouTubeTM was searched using the terms: orthognathic surgery; orthodontic surgery; jaw surgery; jaw corrective surgery. Criteria for the content to be viewed in the study included English language; primary content orthognathic surgery and acceptable audio-visual quality. The following factors were recorded for each video: number of views; likes; dislikes; source; primary intention. Each was classified according to information content as ‘excellent’, ‘moderate’ or ‘poor’. The top 60 videos had a combined total of 6,986,141 views. Videos mainly involved patients describing their personal experience (41.67%) with the majority positively biased (61.67%). Only 9.17% of videos were classified as having excellent general information content and 55.83% were rated as poor. Surgical procedures were described in 45% whilst the need for pre- and post-surgical orthodontics was discussed in 33% and 16%, respectively. Post-operative paraesthesia was discussed in 17.5% of videos outcome.
Video content on YouTube relating to orthognathic surgery is substandard and patients should be advised to view it with caution.

Hegarty E et al. YouTube as an information resource for orthognathic surgery. J Orthodontics 2017 44: 90-96.

Q If you were advising a patient about to make a decision on jaw surgery, would you?
A Suggest that they search the internet as it has excellent video coverage
B Advise them not to go on YouTube for the purposes of getting reliable information
C Just keep quiet about possible online resources
D Caution that if they do search on YouTube the information available is not all that reliable