298
the RTV catalyst, and (2) the thixotropic agent can provide control of the viscosity
of the silicone.
Recently, Roh et al. (2017) reported a simple technique to manufacture an extrudable silicone material that could be placed directly in a 3D printer. The authors
reported that the silicone rubber could be used in the biomedical applications since
it is biocompatible. In addition, they reported that the printable ink consisting of
water and porous biocompatible silicone components could easily be applied to
direct printing of bioscaffolds on living tissues (Roh et al. 2017).
12.2 Conclusions
Maxillofacial silicones are the most used materials in the field of dentistry. The latest developments include the feasibility of 3D printing technologies for direct printing of maxillofacial silicone prostheses. However, there is limited information on
the direct silicone printing and its viability for maxillofacial prosthodontics. The
removal of the conventional laboratory processes by using 3D printing technology
is a challenging factor for doctors. Although promising results have been obtained
in the few studies, future research may open new opportunities in direct silicone
printing. Since time and the cost are the most important factors for both doctors and
patients in the medical field, manufacturing silicone prostheses through 3D printers
could reduce the costs of medical care and working time in manufacturing processes.
Acknowledgments The author acknowledges help provided by Dr. Tomy J. Gutiérrez during the
editorial process. The author also acknowledges Gazi University Faculty of Dentistry Department
of Prosthodontics.
Conflicts of Interest The author declares no conflict of interest.
References
AAMP. (2019). American Academy of Maxillofacial Prosthetics. What is a Maxillofacial
Prosthodontist? https://www.maxillofacialprosthetics.org/referringphysicians/whatismp.html.
Accessed 4 May 2019.
Akay, C., Cevik, P., Karakis, D., & Sevim, H. (2016). In vitro cytotoxicity of maxillofacial silicone
elastomers: Effect of nano-particles. Journal of Prosthodontics, 27(6), 584–587. https://doi.
org/10.1111/jopr.12533.
Bellamy, K., Limbert, G., Waters, M. G., & Middleton, J. (2003). An elastomeric material for
facial prostheses: Synthesis, experimental and numerical testing aspects. Biomaterials, 24(27),
5061–5066. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0142-9612(03)00412-5.
Berman, B. (2012). 3-D printing: The new industrial revolution. Business Horizons, 55(2),
155–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2011.11.003.
Cevik, P., & Eraslan, O. (2017). Effects of the addition of titanium dioxide and silaned silica
nanoparticles on the mechanical properties of maxillofacial silicones. Journal of Prosthodontics,
26(7), 611–615. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12438.
P. Cevik
the RTV catalyst, and (2) the thixotropic agent can provide control of the viscosity
of the silicone.
Recently, Roh et al. (2017) reported a simple technique to manufacture an extrudable silicone material that could be placed directly in a 3D printer. The authors
reported that the silicone rubber could be used in the biomedical applications since
it is biocompatible. In addition, they reported that the printable ink consisting of
water and porous biocompatible silicone components could easily be applied to
direct printing of bioscaffolds on living tissues (Roh et al. 2017).
12.2 Conclusions
Maxillofacial silicones are the most used materials in the field of dentistry. The latest developments include the feasibility of 3D printing technologies for direct printing of maxillofacial silicone prostheses. However, there is limited information on
the direct silicone printing and its viability for maxillofacial prosthodontics. The
removal of the conventional laboratory processes by using 3D printing technology
is a challenging factor for doctors. Although promising results have been obtained
in the few studies, future research may open new opportunities in direct silicone
printing. Since time and the cost are the most important factors for both doctors and
patients in the medical field, manufacturing silicone prostheses through 3D printers
could reduce the costs of medical care and working time in manufacturing processes.
Acknowledgments The author acknowledges help provided by Dr. Tomy J. Gutiérrez during the
editorial process. The author also acknowledges Gazi University Faculty of Dentistry Department
of Prosthodontics.
Conflicts of Interest The author declares no conflict of interest.
References
AAMP. (2019). American Academy of Maxillofacial Prosthetics. What is a Maxillofacial
Prosthodontist? https://www.maxillofacialprosthetics.org/referringphysicians/whatismp.html.
Accessed 4 May 2019.
Akay, C., Cevik, P., Karakis, D., & Sevim, H. (2016). In vitro cytotoxicity of maxillofacial silicone
elastomers: Effect of nano-particles. Journal of Prosthodontics, 27(6), 584–587. https://doi.
org/10.1111/jopr.12533.
Bellamy, K., Limbert, G., Waters, M. G., & Middleton, J. (2003). An elastomeric material for
facial prostheses: Synthesis, experimental and numerical testing aspects. Biomaterials, 24(27),
5061–5066. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0142-9612(03)00412-5.
Berman, B. (2012). 3-D printing: The new industrial revolution. Business Horizons, 55(2),
155–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2011.11.003.
Cevik, P., & Eraslan, O. (2017). Effects of the addition of titanium dioxide and silaned silica
nanoparticles on the mechanical properties of maxillofacial silicones. Journal of Prosthodontics,
26(7), 611–615. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12438.
P. Cevik