Page 287 - IJB-10-4

International Journal of Bioprinting 3D printing prosthesis for palatal fistula

3. Mangia LRL, Tramontina B, Tonocchi R, Polanski JF. 14. Runte C, Dirksen D, Deleré H, et al. Optical data
Correlation between type of clefting and the incidence of acquisition for computer-assisted design of facial prosthesis.
otitis media among children with lip and/or palate clefts. Int J Prosthodont. 2002;15(2):129-132.
ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec. 2019;81(5-6):338-347. 15. Chen X, Wang F, Sun FF, Zhang L, Wu GF. Digital fabrication
doi: 10.1159/000503237
of an adult speech aid prosthesis by using a 3-dimensionally
4. Instrum R, Dzioba A, Dworschak-Stokan A, Husein M. printed polyetheretherketone framework. J Prosthet Dent.
Surgical interventions in velopharyngeal dysfunction: 2022;127(2):358-361.
comparative perceptual speech and nasometric outcomes for doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.08.037
three techniques. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2022;51(1)3. 16. Berger T, Kreibich M. Computational fluid dynamics:
doi: 10.1186/s40463-021-00548-4
a promising diagnostic tool. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg.
5. Bhuskute A, Skirko JR, Roth C, Bayoumi A, Durbin-Johnson 2021;60(2):392-392.
B, Tollefson TT. Association of velopharyngeal insufficiency doi: 10.1093/ejcts/ezab247
with quality of life and patient-reported outcomes after 17. Senaratna CV, Perret JL, Lodge CJ, et al. Prevalence
speech surgery. JAMA Facial Plast Surg. 2017;19(5):406-412. of obstructive sleep apnea in the general population:
doi: 10.1001/jamafacial.2017.0639
a systematic review. Sleep Med Rev. 2017;34:70-81.
6. Winters R, Carter J, Guarisco JL. A novel technique for doi: 10.1016/j.smrv.2016.07.002
superior-based pharyngeal flaps: 10-year results with 18. Reid L. An introduction to biomedical computational fluid
formal speech outcomes assessment. Am J Otolaryngol. dynamics. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2021;1334:205-222.
2018;39(2):142-145. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-76951-2_10
doi: 10.1016/j.amjoto.2017.12.007
19. Tena AF, Clara PC. Use of computational fluid dynamics in
7. Massarelli O, Vaira LA, Gobbi R, Biglio A, Orabona GD, De respiratory medicine. Arch Bronconeumol. 2015;51(6):293-298.
Riu G. Soft palate functional reconstruction with buccinator doi: 10.1016/j.arbres.2014.09.005
myomucosal island flaps. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg.
2018;47(3):316-323. 20. Dong JT, Zou WK, Chen F, Zhao Q. A soft shape memory
doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2017.11.012 reversible dry adhesive. Chin J Polym Sci. 2018;36(8):953-959.
doi: 10.1007/s10118-018-2119-6
8. Brown JS, Shaw RJ. Reconstruction of the maxilla and
midface: introducing a new classification. Lancet Oncol. 21. Cazacu M, Racles C, Vlad A, Antohe M, Forna N. Silicone-
2010;11(10):1001-1008. based composite for relining of removable dental prosthesis.
doi: 10.1016/s1470-2045(10)70113-3 J Compos Mater. 2009;43(19):2045-2055.
doi: 10.1177/0021998309340447
9. Elbashti M, Hattori M, Sumita Y, Aswehlee A, Yoshi S,
Taniguchi H. Creating a digitized database of maxillofacial 22. Neu TR, Vandermei HC, Busscher HJ, Dijk F, Verkerke GJ.
prosthesis (obturators): a pilot study. J Adv Prosthodont. Biodeterioration of medical-grade silicone-rubber used for
2016;8(3):219-223. voice prosthesis - a SEM study. Biomaterials. 1993;14(6):
doi: 10.4047/jap.2016.8.3.219 459-464.
doi: 10.1016/0142-9612(93)90149-v
10. Salazar-Gamarra R, Seelaus R, da Silva JVL, da Silva AM,
Dib LL. Monoscopic photogrammetry to obtain 3D models 23. Salloum MG, Ganji KK, Aldajani AM, Sonune S. Colour
by a mobile device: a method for making facial prosthesis. stability of two commercially available maxillofacial
J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2016;4533. prosthetic elastomers after outdoor weathering in Al Jouf
doi: 10.1186/s40463-016-0145-3 province. Materials. 2023;16(12):4331.
doi: 10.3390/ma16124331
11. Mohammed MI, Cadd B, Peart G, Gibson I. Augmented
patient-specific facial prosthesis production using 24. Aziz T, Waters M, Jagger R. Surface modification of an
medical imaging modelling and 3D printing technologies experimental silicone rubber maxillofacial material to
for improved patient outcomes. Virtual Phys Prototyp. improve wettability. J Dent. 2003;31(3):213-216.
2018;13(3):164-176. doi: 10.1016/s03005712(02)00131-8
12. Tordiglione L, De Franco M, Bosetti G. The prosthetic 25. Singer L, Habib SI, Shalaby HE, Saniour SH, Bourauel
workflow in the digital era. Int J Dent. 2016;2016:9823025. C. Digital assessment of properties of the three different
doi: 10.1155/2016/9823025 generations of dental elastomeric impression materials. Bmc
Oral Health. 2022;22(1):379.
13. Ntovas P, Spanopoulou M, Martin W, Sykaras N.
Superimposition of intraoral scans of an edentulous doi: 10.1186/s12903-022-02419-4
arch with implants and implant-supported provisional 26. Haleem A, Javaid M. 3D scanning applications in medical
restoration, implementing a novel implant prosthetic scan field: a literature-based review. Clin Epidemiol Glob Health.
body. J Prosthodont Res. 2023;67(3):475-480. 2019;7(2):199-210.
doi: 10.2186/jpr.JPR_D_21_00328 doi: 10.1016/j.cegh.2018.05.006

Volume 10 Issue 4 (2024) 279 doi: 10.36922/ijb.2516