The Journal of craniofacial surgery · 2026
Comparison between Custom 3D-Printed Titanium Meshes and Stock Titanium Meshes in Orbital Floor Repair: A Retrospective Analysis.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Gaeta Alessandro, Ferraro Vanessa, Mansour Nada K, Oliva Paolo, Di Maria Alessandra
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare the clinical outcomes of patient-specific customized 3D-printed titanium meshes (PSIs) and stock titanium meshes in orbital floor reconstruction.
METHODS: This retrospective case series included 48 patients undergoing orbital floor repair between June 2024 and March 2025. Patients were divided into Group 1 ( n = 22) receiving custom 3D-printed titanium meshes and Group 2 ( n = 26) receiving stock titanium meshes. Operative time, orbital volume restoration (via 3D volumetric analysis), resolution of enophthalmos, diplopia, and infraorbital paresthesia were assessed. Volumetric measurements were performed using semi-automatic segmentation based on CT scans.
RESULTS: The 3D-printed meshes achieved a better restoration of orbital volume, with a mean reduction in volumetric discrepancy of 89% (SD ± 28%), compared to 51% (SD ± 35%) in the standard mesh group ( P = 0.036). No statistically significant differences were observed in operative time or in the resolution of paresthesia. However, a statistically significant difference between the two groups was found in the resolution of both enophthalmos and diplopia ( P = 0.025 and P = 0.028).
CONCLUSION: Custom 3D-printed titanium meshes showed improved anatomical accuracy and volumetric outcomes compared to stock meshes. Further prospective studies with long-term follow-up are necessary to confirm these findings and assess cost-effectiveness.
METHODS: This retrospective case series included 48 patients undergoing orbital floor repair between June 2024 and March 2025. Patients were divided into Group 1 ( n = 22) receiving custom 3D-printed titanium meshes and Group 2 ( n = 26) receiving stock titanium meshes. Operative time, orbital volume restoration (via 3D volumetric analysis), resolution of enophthalmos, diplopia, and infraorbital paresthesia were assessed. Volumetric measurements were performed using semi-automatic segmentation based on CT scans.
RESULTS: The 3D-printed meshes achieved a better restoration of orbital volume, with a mean reduction in volumetric discrepancy of 89% (SD ± 28%), compared to 51% (SD ± 35%) in the standard mesh group ( P = 0.036). No statistically significant differences were observed in operative time or in the resolution of paresthesia. However, a statistically significant difference between the two groups was found in the resolution of both enophthalmos and diplopia ( P = 0.025 and P = 0.028).
CONCLUSION: Custom 3D-printed titanium meshes showed improved anatomical accuracy and volumetric outcomes compared to stock meshes. Further prospective studies with long-term follow-up are necessary to confirm these findings and assess cost-effectiveness.