The rise of additive manufacturing for ocular and orbital prostheses: A systematic literature review

Abstract

Orbital and ocular prosthesis fabrication is traditionally a manual process requiring highly skilled prosthetists practiced in a variety of manual manufacturing techniques and materials. However, as additive manufacturing and digital modelling technologies mature, many of these processes can be digitised. This systematic review aims to provide an overview of published literature, presenting the trends and common findings that can be used to inform the future research directions of the field. The method follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015. PubMed, ProQuest, Scopus and Web of Science databases were searched for articles published between January 1984 and May 2021. Twenty-three articles met inclusion criteria, the first published in 2004. Over half of the articles were published since 2019. 3D scanning was the most common input for designing a prosthesis, used in 52% of articles (n = 12), followed by CT scans in 35% (n = 8). Fused deposition modelling (FDM) was the dominant additive technology, featured in 39% of articles (n = 9), followed by material jetting (MJ) in 26% of articles (n = 6). 65% of articles (n = 15) used additive manufacturing to create moulds or parts for impressions, while 39% (n = 9) used the printed outcomes in final prostheses. Additive manufacturing is increasingly being investigated for orbital and ocular prostheses; however, the field is dominated by one-off case studies and will require larger studies in order to provide clear evidence for the benefits and limitations reported in the literature.

Keywords

• 3D printing
• 3D scanning
• Artificial eye
• Facial prosthetic
• Medical device
• Medical imaging