In-house 3D printing: Why, when, and how? Overview of the national French good practice guidelines for in-house 3D-printing in maxillo-facial surgery, stomatology, and oral surgery.

3D-printing is part of the daily practice of maxillo-facial surgeons, stomatologists and oral surgeons. To date, no French health center is producing in-house medical devices according to the new European standards. Based on all the evidence-based data available, a group of experts from the French Society of Stomatology, Maxillo-Facial Surgery and Oral Surgery (Société Française de Chirurgie Maxillofaciale, Stomatologie et Chirurgie Orale, SFSCMFCO), provide good practice guidelines for in-house 3D-printing in maxillo-facial surgery, stomatology, and oral surgery. Briefly, technical considerations related to printers and CAD software, which were the main challenges in the last ten years, are now nearly trivial questions. The central current issues when planning the implementation of an in-house 3D-printing platform are economic and regulatory. Successful in-house 3D platforms rely on close collaborations between health professionals and engineers, backed by regulatory and logistic specialists. Several large-scale academic projects across France will soon provide definitive answers to governance and economical questions related to the use of in-house 3D printing.

[Dental complications during orthodontic preparation and orthognathic surgery]. / Complications dentaires de la préparation orthodontique et de la chirurgie orthognathique.

INTRODUCTION: Orthodontic-surgical treatment can present risks to the dental organ and the periodontium. Despite the low incidence of such cases, these complications can compromise a treatment plan. Practitioners should be aware of these potential complications, take them into account during treatment in order to reduce their negative impact and, if necessary, manage them by orthodontic-surgical collaboration. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this article, the authors present several potential complications that can occur during treatment. CONCLUSION: The information given to the patient about the risks inherent in the implementation of an orthodontic-surgical protocol must necessarily include the risks of lesion to the dental organ and the periodontium.

Lower jaw reconstruction and dental rehabilitation after war injuries: The experience of Paul Tessier in Iran in the late 1980s.

Iraq-Iran war resulted in more than 400,000 people requiring prolonged medical care in Iran. An international team of prominent reconstructive surgeons led by Paul Tessier, the founder of craniofacial surgery, was invited to Iran during the war by official organizations entitled to support war victims. This team provided up-to-date oral and maxillofacial rehabilitation to patients with severe trauma defects in the lower third of the face. We collected the medical notes of 43 patients operated on by the Tessier team in Iran in the 1980s (files property of AFCF). The parameters we collected were: age of the patient, nature of the trauma (when available), previous procedures, number of implants placed (mandibular and maxillary), associated procedures (bone grafts, soft-tissue procedures, orthognathic surgery). A protocol based on soft-tissue rehabilitation using local flaps, parietal or iliac bone grafts and implant placement 6 months later was used in all patients. Paul Tessier's approach emphasizes the importance of keeping high standards of care in difficult situations and maintaining standard protocols.

Three-dimensional reconstructions from computed tomographic scans on smartphones and tablets: a simple tutorial for the ward and operating room using public domain software.

Handling 3-dimensional reconstructions of computed tomographic scans on portable devices is problematic because of the size of the Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) stacks. The authors provide a user-friendly method allowing the production, transfer, and sharing of good-quality 3-dimensional reconstructions on smartphones and tablets.

Single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: for what benefit?

BACKGROUND: A single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) was developed to improve outcomes as compared with the four-port classic laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC). Any potential benefits associated with a SILC have been suggested by previous studies reporting few patients with different surgical techniques. The aim of this study was to describe the experience with a standardized SILC as compared with CLC. METHODS: From June 2010 to January 2012, 40 patients underwent a SILC [median age: 47.5 years (25-92)] and operative and peri-operative data were prospectively collected. Over the same period, 37 patients underwent a CLC. A 10-point visual analogue scale (VAS) was used for qualitative data. The costs of SILC and CLC were also compared. RESULTS: For those patients undergoing a SILC the median operating time was 70 min (24-110). There were no conversions. An additional trocar was necessary in 16 patients. Four patients developed post-operative complications. The median immediate post-operative pain score was 5 (0-10). The median quality of life and cosmetic satisfaction at the initial post-operative visit were 10 (6-10) and 10 (5-10), respectively (VAS). Although the surgical results of both groups were similar, post-operative complications were exclusively reported in the SILC group (two incisional hernias). CONCLUSION: Standardization of SILC is possible but associated with an important rate of additional trocar placement and a disturbing rate of incisional hernias.