Dataset Information

A prospective parallel design study testing non-inferiority of customized oral stents made using 3D printing or manually fabricated methods.

ABSTRACT:

Background and purpose

Customized mouth-opening-tongue-depressing-stents (MOTDs) may reduce toxicity in patients with head and neck cancers (HNC) receiving radiotherapy (RT). However, making MOTDs requires substantial resources, which limits their utilization. Previously, we described a workflow for fabricating customized 3D-printed MOTDs. This study reports the results of a prospective trial testing the non-inferiority of 3D-printed to standard and commercially-available (TruGuard) MOTDs as measured by patient reported outcomes (PROs).

Materials and methods

PROs were collected at 3 time points: (t1) simulation, (t2) prior to RT, (t3) between fractions 15-25 of RT. Study participants received a 3D-printed MOTDs (t1, t2, t3), a wax-pattern (t1), an acrylic-MOTDs (t2, t3) and an optional TruGuard (t1, t2, t3). Patients inserted the stents for 5-10 min and completed a PRO-questionnaire covering ease-of-insertion and removal, gagging, jaw-pain, roughness and stability. Inter-incisal opening and tongue-displacement were recorded. With 39 patients, we estimated 90% power to detect a non-inferiority margin of 2 at a significance level of 0.025. Matched pairs and t-test were used for statistics.

Results

41 patients were evaluable. The 3D-printed MOTDs achieved a significantly better overall PRO score compared to the wax-stent (p = 0.0007) and standard-stent (p = 0.0002), but was not significantly different from the TruGuard (p = 0.41). There was no difference between 3D-printed and standard MOTDs in terms of inter-incisal opening (p = 0.4) and position reproducibility (p = 0.98). The average 3D-printed MOTDs turn-around time was 8 vs 48 h for the standard-stent.

Conclusions

3D-printed stents demonstrated non-inferior PROs compared to TruGuard and standard-stents. Our 3D-printing process may expand utilization of MOTDs.

SUBMITTER: Zaid M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7350149 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTo evaluate and establish a digital workflow for the custom designing and 3D printing of mouth opening tongue-depressing (MOTD) stents for patients receiving radiotherapy for head and neck cancer.MethodsWe retrospectively identified 3 patients who received radiation therapy (RT) for primary head and neck cancers with MOTD stents. We compared two methods for obtaining the digital impressions of patients' teeth. The first method involved segmentation from computed tomography (CT) scans, as previously established by our group, and the second method used 3D scanning of the patients' articulated stone models that were made during the conventional stent fabrication process. Three independent observers repeated the process to obtain digital impressions which provided data to design customized MOTD stents. For each method, we evaluated the time efficiency, dice similarity coefficient (DSC) for reproducibility, and the 3D printed stents' accuracy. For the 3D scanning method, we evaluated the registration process using manual and automatic approaches.ResultsFor all patients, the 3D scanning method demonstrated a significant advantage over the CT scanning method in terms of time efficiency with over 60% reduction in time consumed (p < 0.0001) and reproducibility with significantly higher DSC (p < 0.001). The printed stents were tested over the articulated dental stone models, and the trueness of fit and accuracy of dental anatomy was found to be significantly better for MOTD stents made using the 3D scanning method. The automated registration showed higher accuracy with errors < 0.001 mm compared to manual registration.ConclusionsWe developed an efficient workflow for custom designing and 3D-printing MOTD radiation stents. This workflow represents a considerable improvement over the CT-derived segmentation method. The application of this rapid and efficient digital workflow into radiation oncology practices can expand the use of these toxicity sparing devices to practices that do not currently have the support to make them.