Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorEggbeer, Dominic
dc.contributor.authorBibb, Richard
dc.contributor.authorEvans, Peter
dc.contributor.authorJi, Lu
dc.date.accessioned2013-10-22T13:41:23Z
dc.date.available2013-10-22T13:41:23Z
dc.date.issued2012
dc.identifier.citationEggbeer, D., Bibb, R., Evans, P., Ji, L. (2012) 'Evaluation of direct and indirect additive manufacture of maxillofacial prostheses', Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part H, Journal of Engineering in Medicine, 226 (9), pp. 718 - 728en_US
dc.identifier.issn0954-4119
dc.identifier.otherhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0954411912451826
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10369/4808
dc.descriptionThis article was published in the Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part H: Journal of Engineering in Medicine [Sage © Institution of Mechanical Engineers] and the definitive version is available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0954411912451826en_US
dc.description.abstractThe efficacy of computer-aided technologies in the design and manufacture of maxillofacial prostheses has not been fully proven. This paper presents research into the evaluation of direct and indirect additive manufacture of a maxillofacial prosthesis against conventional laboratory-based techniques. An implant/magnet-retained nasal prosthesis case from a UK maxillofacial unit was selected as a case study. A benchmark prosthesis was fabricated using conventional laboratory-based techniques for comparison against additive manufactured prostheses. For the computer-aided workflow, photogrammetry, computer-aided design and additive manufacture (AM) methods were evaluated in direct prosthesis body fabrication and indirect production using an additively manufactured mould. Qualitative analysis of position, shape, colour and edge quality was undertaken. Mechanical testing to ISO standards was also used to compare the silicone rubber used in the conventional prosthesis with the AM material. Critical evaluation has shown that utilising a computer-aided workflow can produce a prosthesis body that is comparable to that produced using existing best practice. Technical limitations currently prevent the direct fabrication method demonstrated in this paper from being clinically viable. This research helps prosthesis providers understand the application of a computer-aided approach and guides technology developers and researchers to address the limitations identified.en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherSage © Institution of Mechanical Engineersen_US
dc.subjectMaxillofacial Prosthesisen_US
dc.subjectRapid Prototypingen_US
dc.subjectAdditive Manufactureen_US
dc.subjectComputer Aided Designen_US
dc.titleEvaluation of direct and indirect additive manufacture of maxillofacial prosthesesen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0954411912451826


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following collection(s)

Show simple item record