Explor BioMat-X EBMX Exploration of BioMat-X 2996-9476 Open Exploration Publishing 10.37349/ebmx.2025.101348 101348 Review Metal 3D printing of prosthetics and implants for head and neck oncologic reconstruction https://orcid.org/0009-0006-5840-9994 Smith Joshua D. Conceptualization Investigation Writing—original draft Writing—review & editing 1 Harris Micah K. Investigation Writing—review & editing 1 Ghodadra Anish Conceptualization Writing—review & editing 2 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2570-1706 Contrera Kevin J. Conceptualization Investigation Writing—review & editing 1 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6049-1508 Sridharan Shaum Conceptualization Investigation Writing—review & editing 1 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4282-0640 Chinn Steven B. Conceptualization Investigation Writing—review & editing 1 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7646-6075 Spector Matthew E. Conceptualization Investigation Writing—original draft Writing—review & editing Supervision 1 * Singh Rupinder Academic Editor National Institute of Technical Teachers Training and Research, India 1Department of Otolaryngology – Head & Neck Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA 2Department of Radiology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA *Correspondence: Matthew E. Spector, Department of Otolaryngology – Head & Neck Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, 203 Lothrop St. Suite 500, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA. spectorme@upmc.edu 2025 12 10 2025 2 101348 22 07 2025 25 09 2025 © The Author(s) 2025. This is an Open Access article licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, for any purpose, even commercially, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Indications for resection of maxillofacial and mandibular skeletal structures include extirpation of benign and malignant tumors, trauma, and congenital defects. Reconstruction of these structures often demands free tissue transfer incorporating bone and/or soft tissue with placement of rigid titanium implants to span the bony defect and anchor the autologous bone. Historically, such implants were mass-produced in standard formats, requiring manual bending during surgery to the patient’s specific bony anatomy. Recent technological and manufacturing advancements have permitted the use of three-dimensional (3D) printed, patient-specific maxillofacial and mandibular reconstructive prosthetics and implants. Preoperative 3D printing of patient-specific prosthetics and implants composed of titanium has revolutionized maxillofacial and mandibular reconstructive surgery and has been associated with improvements in operative efficiency, enhanced functional outcomes, and reduced complication rates in early studies. Herein, we review the history and current state of metal 3D printing of prosthetics and implants for head and neck oncologic reconstruction and posit future directions for innovation and surgical refinement in this area.

 3D printing titanium stereolithography head and neck reconstruction virtual surgical planning Jaw-in-a-Day Introduction

Common indications for resection of maxillofacial and mandibular skeletal structures include extirpation of benign and malignant tumors, trauma, and congenital defects [1]. Loss of such complex bony structures imparts significant functional and aesthetic sequelae, demanding immediate reconstruction with free tissue transfer incorporating bone and soft tissue [2]. The goals of maxillofacial reconstruction include restoration of oronasal separation and midface projection, maintenance of globe support, and rehabilitation of functional dentition [3]. Mandibular reconstruction prioritizes restoration of masticatory function, maintenance of the airway, support of speech and swallowing, and preservation of lower facial contour [4]. Often, these complex reconstructive goals are best achieved through free tissue transfer of autologous bone harvested from the fibula, scapula, or radial forearm.

Reconstruction of maxillofacial and mandibular skeletal defects requires placement of rigid reconstruction plates to span the bony defect and anchor the autologous bone [5]. Such implants, often titanium, ideally fulfill several important biomechanical criteria. First, their strength must be sufficient to withstand long-term occlusal force loading and plate stresses without weakening or fracture [6]. Second, their material must be durable and capable of promoting bony union and limiting resorption of native and autologous transferred bone [7]. Finally, their profile must be acceptable to minimize risk of overlying soft-tissue irritation and plate exposure, particularly overlying the mandible. Ultimately, optimization of these important biomechanical criteria maximizes the patient’s functional and cosmetic outcome and minimizes risk of dreaded hardware-related complications such as plate fracture, exposure, and fistula [8].

Historically, such implants for maxillofacial and mandibular reconstructions were mass-produced in standard formats via subtractive manufacturing [9]. These “stock plates” necessitate manual bending during surgery to the patient’s specific bony anatomy after the resection is completed. In the past few decades, vast technological and manufacturing improvements have permitted the use of three-dimensional (3D)-printed, patient-specific maxillofacial and mandibular reconstructive implants (PSIs) [10]. Such PSIs are custom, 3D-printed implants utilizing the individual patient’s pre-operative CT images and surgeon-informed resection plan [variably termed virtual surgical planning (VSP) or computer-assisted surgery (CAS) in the literature] [11]. In recent years, preoperative 3D printing of PSIs has revolutionized maxillofacial and mandibular reconstructive surgery and has been associated with improvements in operative efficiency, enhanced functional outcomes, and reduced complication rates in early studies [11, 12].

Herein, we review the history and current state of metal 3D printing of prosthetics and implants for head and neck oncologic reconstruction. Specific advantages of these techniques are highlighted for both maxillofacial and mandibular reconstructions. Finally, we posit future directions for innovation and surgical refinement incorporating 3D printed prosthetics and implants for head and neck oncologic reconstruction.

 Historical perspectives: evolution of 3D printing of prosthetics and implants for head and neck oncologic reconstruction

In the late 1980s and 1990s, free tissue transfers of autologous fibula and scapula bone to reconstruct complex maxillofacial and mandibular defects became popularized [13, 14]. For decades thereafter, the use of mass-produced titanium plates with universal configurations necessitating manual intraoperative bending to the patient’s bony anatomy predominated [15]. However, around the same time as the original descriptions of both the fibula and scapula free flaps, medical applications for 3D printing began to be explored [9]. Borrowing from the aerospace industry, Brix et al. [16] and Mankovich et al. [17] are credited with the first use of 3D printing for head and neck surgical applications. The latter utilized CT-guided stereolithography (SLA) to generate plastic models of patient-specific craniofacial anatomy for surgical planning and medical education. For the first few years after this initial report, surgical planning, medical education, and patient counseling remained the primary applications of 3D printing in head and neck reconstructive surgery [18]. At the turn of the century, 3D printing of osteotomy guides and occlusal splints emerged, improving accuracy, and reducing operative time for bony reconstructions of the maxillofacial and mandibular skeleton [19].

In the 2010s, the additive manufacturing (AM) technique of 3D printing emerged and ushered in a new era of precision reconstruction of maxillofacial and mandibular skeletal defects [20]. AM, in which complex objects are fabricated by the sequential addition of metallic layers, permitted production of metal prostheses and implants with highly complex geometries and microarchitectures and hollow spaces (e.g., screw holes) [21]. AM, supported by reduced production costs and improved design software, facilitated a revolution in head and neck reconstructive surgery [22]. In addition to 3D printed anatomic models for surgical planning and medical education, 3D printing of metal prostheses and implants for customized reconstructive applications became practical. Rapid proliferation of these techniques has prompted the establishment of 3D printing point-of-care (POC) facilities in many academic institutions, independent of industry partners, equipped with expert personnel, 3D printers, and post-processing software [23]. These 3D printing POC facilities permit incorporation of “digitalization and precision surgery” into head and neck reconstructive surgeons’ practice with ease and convenience [10].

 Current state: titanium and alternative materials

Durable reconstruction of the maxillofacial and mandibular skeleton demands surgical implant(s) with favorable biomechanical properties to support long-term form and function of resected bone. Presently, titanium is the gold-standard material for 3D printing of prosthetics and implants for head and neck reconstruction [24]. Titanium plates and screws offer excellent mechanical strength and durability required of load-bearing bony reconstructions. Further, titanium is corrosion resistant, easy to handle, and cost-effective to produce both in bulk quantities and for patient-specific applications [24]. However, titanium prosthetics and implants are associated with occasional temperature sensitivity and palpable sensation of plate(s) and screw(s) [25]. Additionally, their potential interference with postoperative radiation therapy and surveillance imaging (i.e., CT, MRI) for patients with head and neck cancer are important considerations [25]. Ultimately, surgical removal of titanium plate(s) and screw(s) prompted by symptomatic plate infection, exposure, fistula, and/or fracture occurs in as many as 40% of patients undergoing bony reconstruction of the maxillofacial and mandibular skeleton [26].

To obviate the need for eventual explant of plate(s) and screw(s), numerous degradable polymers, including polyglycolic acid (PGA), polylactic acid (PLA), alginate, and chitosan, have been investigated for use in head and neck reconstructive applications [24]. Duration of biodegradation varies depending on the specific polymer, though it generally occurs over several years in vivo [24]. Beyond their eventual biodegradation, purported advantages of such polymers include high biocompatibility, decreased risk of interference with craniofacial growth (e.g., pediatric maxillofacial trauma), and lower production cost compared to metal alloys [27]. However, such polymers are associated with symptomatic foreign body reaction during biodegradation [27]. Ultimately, concerns regarding inadequate strength of degradable polymeric, relative to titanium, prostheses and implants have limited their use in head and neck reconstructive surgical applications outside of pediatric maxillofacial trauma [27]. For instance, a comparative study by Gareb et al. [28] showed titanium to be superior to biodegradable systems with respect to tensile, bending, and torsion forces for all midface and mandibular reconstructive scenarios.

Presently, titanium remains the gold-standard material for metal 3D printing of prosthetics and implants for head and neck oncologic reconstruction [24]. However, hardware-associated complications are highly prevalent and symptomatic for patients, emphasizing the need for study of novel materials and techniques in this space. One promising area for future study is the use of 3D printed prostheses and implants composed of degradable polymeric scaffolds coated with osteogenic growth factors [29]. Such techniques have recently been applied to temporomandibular joint (TMJ) reconstruction, with promising early functional outcomes [29]. However, at present, such techniques are experimental, limited to pre-clinical investigations, and will require thorough vetting and approval by federal regulatory agencies such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA). Finally, biodegradable metals such as magnesium (Mg), iron (Fe), and zinc (Zn) alloy are under active investigation as alternatives to titanium with good mechanical stability and osteoconductive properties [27].

Current state: metal 3D printing of titanium implants for maxillofacial and mandibular reconstruction

Traditional bony reconstructions of extirpative maxillofacial and mandibular defects entail a “free hand” surgical approach in which autologous bone is osteotomized and oriented and titanium plates are cut and shaped based on the surgeon’s expertise [30]. Achieving optimal masticatory, speech, and swallowing outcomes with this approach is largely dependent on surgeon expertise and experience [30]. Intraoperative free hand bending of titanium plates to native and autologous bone can be time consuming and require multiple readjustments, leading to plate stress and weakening [31]. Ultimately, suboptimal plate bending and fixation may impede osseointegration and increase risk of later plate exposure and infection.

PSI’s leveraging computer aided design/computer assisted manufacturing (CAD/CAM) technology were originally conceived as a solution to permit pre-planning and pre-contouring of titanium plates for maxillofacial and mandibular reconstruction [15]. In one such technique, patient-specific, 3D printed models of the patient’s native craniofacial anatomy and custom osteotomy guides are used to facilitate intraoperative plate bending and fixation and precise screw hole placement (Figure 1) [32]. Compared to free hand techniques, this method is associated with decreased operative and free flap ischemia times [33] and theoretical preservation of tensile strength of titanium plates [34].

CAD/CAM and 3D printing to manufacture patient specific anatomic models for pre-planning and pre-contouring of titanium plates for maxillofacial and mandibular reconstruction. (A) Patient specific right scapula and mandible models showing planned posterolateral segmental mandibulectomy. (B) Titanium reconstruction plate is precisely pre-contoured to mandible model.

3D printed, pre-bent titanium PSIs may provide additional benefit to surgeon and patient alike in certain reconstructive scenarios. These 3D printed, pre-bent titanium PSIs are most often commercially manufactured (e.g., KLS Martin©) via SLA. SLA is a contemporary 3D printing process with noted advantages in precision, resolution, and speed in comparison to other processes such as electron beam melting (EBM) and selective laser melting (SLM). A detailed comparison of these techniques for medical applications is nicely reviewed in Lakkala et al. [35]. They are particularly useful in cases in which tumor disrupts outer cortical bone of the mandible or necessitates resection of the condyle [36]. In the latter scenario, pre-bent titanium PSIs affixed to a TMJ prosthesis may afford superior range-of-motion and precise occlusion postoperatively [36]. Numerous systematic reviews and meta-analyses have shown consistent and clinically relevant reduction in operative and ischemia times for 3D printed, pre-bent titanium PSIs relative to free hand techniques [37]. Further, use of 3D printed, pre-bent titanium PSIs may improve rates of osseous union [38] and may permit enhanced preservation of perforator vessels to autologous fibula bone [39]. Additionally, some authors have shown improved restoration of preoperative dental occlusion and more rapid return to oral diet with 3D printed, titanium PSIs over free hand techniques [40, 41].

Importantly, VSP techniques utilizing 3D printed, pre-bent titanium PSIs for maxillofacial and mandibular reconstruction have several important disadvantages. First, such techniques require pre-operative estimation of oncologic margins. Thus, intraoperative revision of bony margins to achieve a margin-negative resection may alter planned plate position and screw hole placement [42]. Second, 3D printed, pre-bent titanium PSIs are most often produced by industrial partners, rather than academic POC facilities, contributing to increased costs relative to less sophisticated techniques [43]. Though increased surgical costs are often cited as a major disadvantage of 3D printed, pre-bent titanium PSIs, their immediate costs may ultimately be balanced by reduced need for reoperation for hardware removal [43]. To our knowledge, these longitudinal cost comparisons have not been explored in the literature and thus are an attractive area for further study. Finally, for certain time-sensitive surgical indications such as maxillofacial trauma, 3D printed, pre-bent titanium PSIs produced by industry partners may not be practical. In this situation, academic POC facilities, where available, are invaluable.

Beyond 3D printed, pre-bent titanium PSIs for rigid bony fixation of the reconstructed maxillofacial and mandibular skeleton, some authors have advocated for the use of 3D printed, prefabricated titanium mesh for reconstruction of extirpative maxillectomy defects. Liu et al. [44] noted that contemporary 3D printing technology has permitted shaping of titanium mesh to optimally recreate the orbital floor, hard palate, and vertical buttresses of the maxilla. In their case series of 12 patients undergoing total maxillectomy, reconstruction with 3D printed, prefabricated titanium mesh and soft tissue free flaps nicely restored orbital volume and protrusion to preoperative measurements. Two additional case reports cited high patient satisfaction with facial and orbital symmetry achieved with this reconstructive technique [45, 46].

 Current state: metal 3D printing for immediate dental rehabilitation with “Jaw-in-a-Day”

Restoration of functional dentition is a primary goal of head and neck reconstructive surgery involving the maxillofacial and mandibular skeleton. Traditionally, placement of dental implants into autologous fibula bone reconstructing the maxillary or mandibular alveolus is delayed until several months after the initial oncologic surgery [47]. Besides the significant delay in oral rehabilitation, secondary placement of dental implants poses a tangible risk of implant failure and osteoradionecrosis (ORN) in patients who have undergone adjuvant radiation [48].

Recently, advances in 3D printing and CAD/CAM technology have permitted immediate dental rehabilitation at the time of ablative oncologic surgery, termed “Jaw-in-a-Day” (JIAD) (Figure 2) [49]. Contemporary JIAD approaches encompass four components: 1. digitally planned oncologic resections of the maxilla or mandible, 2. fibular free flap reconstruction with 3D printed titanium plate fixation, 3. primary placement of titanium dental implant(s), and 4. immediate loading of a hybrid dental prosthesis during surgery [50]. Due to the complexity of such approaches, commercial manufacturers (e.g., KLS Martin©) are essential partners for these techniques.

Jaw-in-a-Day reconstructive plan for a patient with a benign ameloblastoma undergoing anterior segmental mandibulectomy. (A) Custom mandibular osteotomy guides permit precise excision of tumor with appropriate oncologic margins (red). (B) Reconstructive plan for a three-segment right fibula free flap. (C) Three-segment fibula free flap is inset into anterior mandibular defect and fixated with custom titanium reconstruction plate. (D) Drill guides (yellow) for precise placement of prosthetic abutments into the fibula. (E) Depiction of custom dental prosthetic affixed to fibula reconstruction.

In 2013, Levine et al. [51] published the first series of four patients undergoing JIAD reconstruction for benign tumors of the maxilla or mandible. CAD/CAM technology utilizing the patients’ preoperative CT scans guided SLA manufacturing of titanium osteotomy guides, rigid fixation plate, and dental prosthetic implants. Using this technique, a mean (range) of 8 (4–12) teeth were immediately restored with rapid return to full oral diet in their four cases [51]. The authors stressed the importance of careful patient selection for success of this novel JIAD approach, such that it should only be offered to compliant, motivated patients with benign tumors not requiring adjuvant radiation.

Presently, JIAD approaches continue to increase in popularity in academic centers across the globe [52]. Early evidence supports rapid rehabilitation of full oral diet, optimal cosmesis, and durable implant viability even in the setting of adjuvant radiation [48, 52]. Incorporation of prosthodontists and/or oral surgeons into preoperative VSP sessions may enhance success and postoperative recovery of JIAD approaches.

 Current state: metal 3D printing for immediate dental rehabilitation with maxillary pre-prosthetics

Certain extirpative defects of the maxilla (e.g., small, posterior defects) result in loss of functional dentition but are sufficiently reconstructed with a soft tissue free flap, rather than autologous bone, to achieve separation of the nasal and oral cavities [53]. Without autologous fibula bone to accept dental implants, a 3D printed, custom, titanium pre-prosthetic is an excellent option for functional dental rehabilitation in either a primary or delayed fashion [54]. The titanium pre-prosthetic is designed for screw fixation to the patient’s zygomatic arch, nasomaxillary process, and/or the pre-maxillary bone. The soft tissue free flap is then carefully pierced to permit intraoral exposure of implant abutments followed by fixation of a custom denture. 3D printed, titanium pre-prosthetics for maxillary reconstruction are even newer approaches than JIAD approaches. However, initial case series show promising functional outcomes [55]. Like JIAD approaches, incorporation of prosthodontists and/or oral surgeons into pre-prosthetic design, surgery, and postoperative recovery is essential.

 Towards the future of metal 3D printing of prosthetics and implants for head and neck oncologic reconstruction

The 21st century has seen a rapid evolution in 3D printing technologies and manufacturing capabilities for prosthetics and implants for head and neck oncologic reconstruction. This evolution has led to significantly increased complexity and capabilities for maxillofacial and mandibular reconstruction after extirpative surgery. Importantly, contemporary outcomes data for techniques described herein is encouraging, with consistent improvements shown for surgeon satisfaction, operative time, functional (e.g., speech, swallowing, mastication) and cosmetic outcomes. However, as most published studies are single-institution, retrospective cohort studies, future investigations should prioritize controlled study designs with clearly defined primary and secondary outcome measures. As materials, infrastructure, and technologies continue to grow at an unprecedented pace, the future of metal 3D printing of prosthetics and implants for head and neck oncologic reconstruction is truly exciting.

Titanium implant-associated infection and exposure necessitating surgical removal, most frequently required in patients who have undergone adjuvant radiation, remains a significant clinical problem. Rates of such complications are estimated to occur in as many as 40% of patients undergoing head and neck reconstruction and adjuvant radiation [56]. Investigation of novel metal biomaterials for 3D printed prosthetics and implants, such as Mg, Fe, and Zn alloy, is ongoing. Additionally, 3D printed nickel titanium (nitinol) alloy reconstruction plates may hold superior elastic and osteoconductive properties compared to titanium for mandibular reconstruction [57, 58]. However, concerns remain regarding the tensile strength and durability of novel metal biomaterials such as Mg, Fe, and Zn, and more robust biomechanical studies are needed to support in vivo studies [27].

While currently limited to pre-clinical studies, bioprinting of 3D printed metal scaffolds incorporating osteogenic stem cells or growth factors is an active area of investigation [59]. Ultimately, such novel biomaterials may have exciting applications but will require considerable testing to ensure compatibility, safety, and efficacy in patients undergoing maxillofacial and mandibular reconstruction.

Growth in number and sophistication of 3D printed POC facilities embedded within academic medical centers is another exciting area of growth [60]. Such POC facilities improve surgeon input and collaboration and reduce delivery timeline, particularly important in cases of maxillofacial and mandibular trauma and aggressive cancers [38]. Presently, however, 3D printing capabilities of most POC facilities are limited to non-metal anatomic models and osteotomy guides. As CAD/CAM and manufacturing technologies evolve and become cheaper, POC facilities may become capable of metal 3D printing of titanium PSIs for maxillofacial and mandibular reconstruction. Importantly, expansion in such capabilities of POC facilities will need to be supported by clear regulatory guidance for implementation.

JIAD and maxillary pre-prosthetic approaches are relatively new, first described in 2013 [51]. Their widespread use in head and neck reconstructive surgery will be facilitated by improvements in cost, manufacturing efficiency, and formation of multi-disciplinary teams incorporating head and neck surgeons, prosthodontists, and oral surgeons.

 Conclusions

In the past few decades, 3D printing of PSIs has revolutionized maxillofacial and mandibular reconstructive surgery, permitting improvements in operative efficiency, enhanced functional outcomes, and reduced complication rates in early studies. Facilitated by reductions in cost, improvements in manufacturing efficiency, and proliferation of 3D printing capabilities in academic POC facilities, the future of such paradigms is truly exciting.

 Abbreviations 3D

three-dimensional

 AM

additive manufacturing

 CAD/CAM

computer aided design/computer assisted manufacturing

 CAS

computer-assisted surgery

 JIAD

Jaw-in-a-Day

 POC

point-of-care

 PSI

patient-specific implant

 SLA

stereolithography

 TMJ

temporomandibular joint

 VSP

virtual surgical planning

 Declarations Author contributions

JDS: Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing—original draft, Writing—review & editing. MKH: Investigation, Writing—review & editing. AG: Conceptualization, Writing—review & editing. KJC: Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing—review & editing. SS: Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing—review & editing. SBC: Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing—review & editing. MES: Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing—original draft, Writing—review & editing, Supervision. All authors read and approved the submitted version.

 Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

 Ethical approval

Not applicable.

 Consent to participate

Not applicable.

 Consent to publication

Not applicable.

 Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

 Funding

Not applicable.

 Copyright

© The Author(s) 2025.

 Publisher’s note

Open Exploration maintains a neutral stance on jurisdictional claims in published institutional affiliations and maps. All opinions expressed in this article are the personal views of the author(s) and do not represent the stance of the editorial team or the publisher.

 Haring CT Marchiano EJ Stevens JR Malloy KM Casper KA Prince ME et al. Osteotomized folded scapular tip free flap for complex midfacial reconstruction Plast Aesthet Res 2021 8 33 10.20517/2347-9264.2021.44 35355782 PMC8963190 Chepeha DB Moyer JS Bradford CR Prince ME Marentette L Teknos TN Osseocutaneous radial forearm free tissue transfer for repair of complex midfacial defects Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2005 131 513 7 10.1001/archotol.131.6.513 15967885 Futran ND Primary reconstruction of the maxilla following maxillectomy with or without sacrifice of the orbit J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2005 63 1765 9 10.1016/j.joms.2005.08.014 16297698 Kim RY Sokoya M Ducic Y Williams F Free-Flap Reconstruction of the Mandible Semin Plast Surg 2019 33 46 53 10.1055/s-0039-1677791 30863212 PMC6408245 Knott PD Suh JD Nabili V Sercarz JA Head C Abemayor E et al. Evaluation of hardware-related complications in vascularized bone grafts with locking mandibular reconstruction plate fixation Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2007 133 1302 6 10.1001/archotol.133.12.1302 18086976 Kim HAJ De Biasio MJ Forte V Gilbert RW Irish JC Goldstein DP et al. Optimizing Osteotomy Geometries in Posterolateral Mandibulectomies JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2024 150 1113 20 10.1001/jamaoto.2024.3246 39480439 Klotch DW Gal TJ Gal RL Assessment of plate use for mandibular reconstruction: has changing technology made a difference? Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1999 121 388 92 10.1016/S0194-5998(99)70226-3 10504593 McBee DB DiLeo MJ Keehn CC Huang AT Haskins AD Hernandez DJ Early and Late Complications of Mandibulectomy Free Flap Reconstruction: Does the Selective Use of Soft Tissue Only Flaps Reduce Complications? Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2024 133 672 8 10.1177/00034894241250177 38676442 PMC11179315 Singh TS Jr Bhola N Reche A The Utility of 3D Printing for Surgical Planning and Patient-Specific Implant Design in Maxillofacial Surgery: A Narrative Review Cureus 2023 15 e48242 10.7759/cureus.48242 38054128 PMC10695083 Su YX Thieringer FM Fernandes R Parmar S Editorial: Virtual surgical planning and 3d printing in head and neck tumor resection and reconstruction Front Oncol 2022 12 960545 10.3389/fonc.2022.960545 36003774 PMC9394458 Yang WF Choi WS Leung YY Curtin JP Du R Zhang CY et al. Three-dimensional printing of patient-specific surgical plates in head and neck reconstruction: A prospective pilot study Oral Oncol 2018 78 31 6 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2018.01.005 29496055 Antúnez-Conde R Salmerón JI Díez-Montiel A Agea M Gascón D Sada Á et al. Mandibular Reconstruction With Fibula Flap and Dental Implants Through Virtual Surgical Planning and Three Different Techniques: Double-Barrel Flap, Implant Dynamic Navigation and CAD/CAM Mesh With Iliac Crest Graft Front Oncol 2021 11 719712 10.3389/fonc.2021.719712 34676161 PMC8525397 Hidalgo DA Fibula free flap: a new method of mandible reconstruction Plast Reconstr Surg 1989 84 71 9 2734406 Van Thienen CE Deraemaecker R The serratus anterior scapular flap —A new osteomuscular unit Eur J Plast Surg 1988 11 156 61 10.1007/bf00295276 Marchetti C Bianchi A Mazzoni S Cipriani R Campobassi A Oromandibular reconstruction using a fibula osteocutaneous free flap: four different “preplating” techniques Plast Reconstr Surg 2006 118 643 51 10.1097/01.prs.0000233211.54505.9a 16932172 Brix F Hebbinghaus D Meyer W Procedures and equipment for model building in relation to orthopedic and traumatologic surgery planning Rontgenpraxis 1985 38 290 2. German 4060000 Mankovich NJ Cheeseman AM Stoker NG The display of three-dimensional anatomy with stereolithographic models J Digit Imaging 1990 3 200 3 10.1007/BF03167610 2085555 Dadhich A Nilesh K Shah S Saluja H Three-dimensional printing in maxillofacial surgery: A quantum leap in future Natl J Maxillofac Surg 2022 13 S203 11 10.4103/njms.NJMS_65_20 36393959 PMC9651252 Cunningham LL Jr Madsen MJ Peterson G Stereolithographic modeling technology applied to tumor resection J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2005 63 873 8 10.1016/j.joms.2005.02.027 15944992 Zoabi A Redenski I Oren D Kasem A Zigron A Daoud S et al. 3D Printing and Virtual Surgical Planning in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery J Clin Med 2022 11 2385 10.3390/jcm11092385 35566511 PMC9104292 Steenhuis HJ Pretorius L The additive manufacturing innovation: A range of implications J Manuf Technol Manag 2017 28 122 43 10.1108/jmtm-06-2016-0081 Zoccali F Colizza A Cialente F Di Stadio A La Mantia I Hanna C et al. 3D Printing in Otolaryngology Surgery: Descriptive Review of Literature to Define the State of the Art Healthcare (Basel) 2022 11 108 10.3390/healthcare11010108 36611568 PMC9819565 Naros A Weise H Tilsen F Hoefert S Naros G Krimmel M et al. Three-dimensional accuracy of mandibular reconstruction by patient-specific pre-bent reconstruction plates using an “in-house” 3D-printer J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2018 46 1645 51 10.1016/j.jcms.2018.05.047 29983306 Gareb B Van Bakelen NB Vissink A Bos RRM Van Minnen B Titanium or Biodegradable Osteosynthesis in Maxillofacial Surgery? In Vitro and In Vivo Performances Polymers (Basel) 2022 14 2782 10.3390/polym14142782 35890557 PMC9316877 Spałek J Ociepa P Deptuła P Piktel E Daniluk T Król G et al. Biocompatible Materials in Otorhinolaryngology and Their Antibacterial Properties Int J Mol Sci 2022 23 2575 10.3390/ijms23052575 35269718 PMC8910137 Domack AM Silverman DA Tang AL Zender CA Patil YJ Managing Oromandibular Hardware Failure after Free Flap Surgery Semin Plast Surg 2022 37 53 6 10.1055/s-0042-1760289 36776800 PMC9911215 Neumann A Kevenhoerster K Biomaterials for craniofacial reconstruction GMS Curr Top Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2009 8 Doc08 10.3205/cto000060 22073101 PMC3199817 Gareb B Roossien CC van Bakelen NB Verkerke GJ Vissink A Bos RRM et al. Comparison of the mechanical properties of biodegradable and titanium osteosynthesis systems used in oral and maxillofacial surgery Sci Rep 2020 10 18143 10.1038/s41598-020-75299-9 33097757 PMC7584639 Della Bona A Cantelli V Britto VT Collares KF Stansbury JW 3D printing restorative materials using a stereolithographic technique: a systematic review Dent Mater 2021 37 336 50 10.1016/j.dental.2020.11.030 33353734 PMC7855936 Nyirjesy SC Heller M von Windheim N Gingras A Kang SY Ozer E et al. The role of computer aided design/computer assisted manufacturing (CAD/CAM) and 3- dimensional printing in head and neck oncologic surgery: A review and future directions Oral Oncol 2022 132 105976 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2022.105976 35809506 Sethi RKV Spector ME Chinn SB New technologies in bony reconstruction of complex head and neck defects Curr Surg Reports 2021 9 13 10.1007/s40137-021-00290-w Toto JM Chang EI Agag R Devarajan K Patel SA Topham NS Improved operative efficiency of free fibula flap mandible reconstruction with patient-specific, computer-guided preoperative planning Head Neck 2015 37 1660 4 10.1002/hed.23815 24954814 Prisman E Haerle SK Irish JC Daly M Miles B Chan H Value of preoperative mandibular plating in reconstruction of the mandible Head Neck 2014 36 828 33 10.1002/hed.23382 23720142 Hanasono MM Skoracki RJ Computer-assisted design and rapid prototype modeling in microvascular mandible reconstruction Laryngoscope 2013 123 597 604 10.1002/lary.23717 23007556 Lakkala P Munnangi SR Bandari S Repka M Additive manufacturing technologies with emphasis on stereolithography 3D printing in pharmaceutical and medical applications: A review Int J Pharm X 2023 5 100159 10.1016/j.ijpx.2023.100159 36632068 PMC9827389 Tarsitano A Mazzoni S Cipriani R Scotti R Marchetti C Ciocca L The CAD-CAM technique for mandibular reconstruction: an 18 patients oncological case-series J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2014 42 1460 4 10.1016/j.jcms.2014.04.011 24942093 Padilla PL Mericli AF Largo RD Garvey PB Computer-Aided Design and Manufacturing versus Conventional Surgical Planning for Head and Neck Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Plast Reconstr Surg 2021 148 183 92 10.1097/PRS.0000000000008085 34076623 May MM Howe BM O’Byrne TJ Alexander AE Morris JM Moore EJ et al. Short and long-term outcomes of three-dimensional printed surgical guides and virtual surgical planning versus conventional methods for fibula free flap reconstruction of the mandible: Decreased nonunion and complication rates Head Neck 2021 43 2342 52 10.1002/hed.26688 33786910 Goetze E Kämmerer PW Al-Nawas B Moergel M Integration of Perforator Vessels in CAD/CAM Free Fibula Graft Planning: A Clinical Feasibility Study J Maxillofac Oral Surg 2020 19 61 6 10.1007/s12663-019-01215-y 31988566 PMC6954946 Avraham T Franco P Brecht LE Ceradini DJ Saadeh PB Hirsch DL et al. Functional outcomes of virtually planned free fibula flap reconstruction of the mandible Plast Reconstr Surg 2014 134 628e 34e 10.1097/PRS.0000000000000513 25357057 Jiang FF Hou Y Lu L Ding XX Li W Yan AH Functional evaluation of a CAD/CAM prosthesis for immediate defect repair after total maxillectomy: a case series of 18 patients with maxillary sinus cancer J Esthet Restor Dent 2015 27 Suppl 1 S80 9 10.1111/jerd.12117 25345998 Bittermann G Scheifele C Prokic V Bhatt V Henke M Grosu A et al. Description of a method: computer generated virtual model for accurate localisation of tumour margins, standardised resection, and planning of radiation treatment in head & neck cancer surgery J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2013 41 279 81 10.1016/j.jcms.2012.10.011 23245946 Zweifel DF Simon C Hoarau R Pasche P Broome M Are virtual planning and guided surgery for head and neck reconstruction economically viable? J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2015 73 170 5 10.1016/j.joms.2014.07.038 25443385 Liu BY Cao G Dong Z Chen W Xu JK Guo T The application of 3D-printed titanium mesh in maxillary tumor patients undergoing total maxillectomy J Mater Sci Mater Med 2019 30 125 10.1007/s10856-019-6326-7 31728639 Takano M Sugahara K Koyachi M Odaka K Matsunaga S Homma S et al. Maxillary reconstruction using tunneling flap technique with 3D custom-made titanium mesh plate and particulate cancellous bone and marrow graft: a case report Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg 2019 41 43 10.1186/s40902-019-0228-y 31649904 PMC6797690 Mayo W Mohamad AH Zazo H Zazo A Alhashemi M Meslmany A et al. Facial defects reconstruction by titanium mesh bending using 3D printing technology: A report of two cases Ann Med Surg (Lond) 2022 78 103837 10.1016/j.amsu.2022.103837 35734651 PMC9207074 Pu JJ Hakim SG Melville JC Su YX Current Trends in the Reconstruction and Rehabilitation of Jaw following Ablative Surgery Cancers (Basel) 2022 14 3308 10.3390/cancers14143308 35884369 PMC9320033 Kim H Roh T Banegas DW Cha IH Kim HJ Nam W et al. Is immediate dental implant in fibula free flap beneficial for implant survival and osteoradionecrosis in jaw reconstruction? Oral Oncol 2024 156 106945 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2024.106945 39002300 Nunez A Pak KY Kupferman S Lee JK Mallen-St Clair J Unique Application of the Jaw-in-a-Day Technique in a Case of Trauma Laryngoscope 2025 135 2331 4 10.1002/lary.32042 40035311 Khatib B Cheng A Sim F Bray B Patel A Challenges With the Jaw in a Day Technique J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2020 78 1869.e1 1869.e10 10.1016/j.joms.2020.06.007 32707040 Levine JP Bae JS Soares M Brecht LE Saadeh PB Ceradini DJ et al. Jaw in a day: total maxillofacial reconstruction using digital technology Plast Reconstr Surg 2013 131 1386 91 10.1097/PRS.0b013e31828bd8d0 23714799 Zweifel D Bredell MG Essig H Gander T Lanzer M Rostetter C et al. Total virtual workflow in CAD-CAM bony reconstruction with a single step free fibular graft and immediate dental implants Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2018 56 859 63 10.1016/j.bjoms.2018.09.010 30293801 Brown JS Shaw RJ Reconstruction of the maxilla and midface: introducing a new classification Lancet Oncol 2010 11 1001 8 10.1016/S1470-2045(10)70113-3 20932492 Terheyden H Raghoebar GM Sjöström M Starch-Jensen T Cawood J Preprosthetic Surgery-Narrative Review and Current Debate J Clin Med 2023 12 7262 10.3390/jcm12237262 38068314 PMC10707555 Noh K Pae A Lee JW Kwon YD Fabricating a tooth- and implant-supported maxillary obturator for a patient after maxillectomy with computer-guided surgery and CAD/CAM technology: A clinical report J Prosthet Dent 2016 115 637 42 10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.10.015 26774316 Jahadakbar A Nematollahi M Safaei K Bayati P Giri G Dabbaghi H et al. Design, modeling, additive manufacturing, and polishing of stiffness-modulated porous nitinol bone fixation plates followed by thermomechanical and composition analysis Metals 2020 10 151 10.3390/met10010151 McCann AC Shnayder Y Przylecki WH Kakarala K Nazir N Girod DA et al. Comparison of Modern Rigid Fixation Plating Outcomes for Segmental Mandibular Microvascular Reconstruction Laryngoscope 2019 129 1081 6 10.1002/lary.27406 30284278 Taylor SL Ibeh AJ Jakus AE Shah RN Dunand DC NiTi-Nb micro-trusses fabricated via extrusion-based 3D-printing of powders and transient-liquid-phase sintering Acta Biomater 2018 76 359 70 10.1016/j.actbio.2018.06.015 29890266 Kang HW Lee SJ Ko IK Kengla C Yoo JJ Atala A A 3D bioprinting system to produce human-scale tissue constructs with structural integrity Nat Biotechnol 2016 34 312 9 10.1038/nbt.3413 26878319 Marquardt MD Cowen E Fenberg R von Windheim N Lashutka M Reid AE et al. Mandibular reconstruction outcomes for in-house patient-specific solutions 3D Print Med 2025 11 31 10.1186/s41205-025-00280-z 40591117 PMC12211303