Submitted:
24 April 2024
Posted:
25 April 2024
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
- Tensile strength - with constant use and hygiene of the denture, the tensile strength of the material should correspond to values between 53 and 175 N/cm.
- Ultimate tensile strength and percent (maximum) elongation - the engineered structural material should have a tensile strength of 2 to 7MPa and high percent elongation.
- Dynamic modulus - the material should have a low dynamic modulus and be resistant to deformation.
- Hardness is one of the main properties as the facial epithesis should be similar in hardness to the lost part of the face and should correspond to values between 25 and 40 Shore A values.
- Rigidity - to avoid changes in the physical properties of the final epithesis under the influence of temperature, the material must have a low glass transition temperature.
- Wettability - assessed by measuring the angle of contact between water and the surface of the final structure. Optimal wettability of the material prevents it from spreading and changing its physical and mechanical properties
- Water sorption - the level of water adsorbed in the material should be moderate and epithets should not be subjected to deformation during sterilization.
- Optimal specific gravity - for comfortable daily use and denture retention, the material developed should not be heavy.
- direct-contact method
- by calcein-AM and propidium iodide staining
- a method for assessing the total metabolic activity of cells using the XTT-test.
3. Results
- urethandimethacrylate - 50,
- polyethylene glycol dimethacrylate -41,49,
- 2-hydroxypropyl methacrylate - 5,
- diphenyl (2,4,6-trimethylbenzoyl) phosphinoxide - 3,
- titanium dioxide 0.2,
- iron oxide pigment brown 0.2,
- iron oxide pigment red 0,01,
- iron oxide pigment yellow 0.1.
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Antonova, I.N.; Kalakuckij, N.V.; Veselova, K.A.; Kalakuckij, I.N.; Gromova, N.V. Harakteristika proteticheskih materialov dlja protezov lica (obzor). Institut stomatologii. 2019, 1, 94–97, (In Russ.). [Google Scholar]
- Igumnov, A.I.; Apresyan, S.V.; Stepanov, A.G.; Kharazyan, A.E.; Grigoryants, L.S.; Suonio, V.K.; Zrazhevskaya, A.P. Evaluation of clinical effectiveness of hygiene products for the care of facial prostheses. Russ. J. Dent. 2024, 27, 551–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Apresyan, S.V.; Stepanov, A.G.; Retinskaya, M.V.; Suonio, V.K. Development of complex of digital planning of dental treatment and assessment of its clinical effectiveness. Russian Journal of Dentistry. 2020, 24, 135–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Apresyan, S.V.; Stepanov, A.G.; Antonik, M.M.; Degtjarev, N.E.; Kravec, P.L.; Lih- nenko, M.N.; Malazonija, T.T.; Sarkisjan, B.A. Kompleksnoe cifrovoe planirovanie stomatologicheskogo lechenija. M.: Izdatel’stvo Mozartika; 2020. (In Russ.).
- Harazjan AJe, Arutjunov AS, Lebedenko IJu, Arutjunov SD. Jesteticheskoe formirovanie licevogo proteza pri defektah srednej zony lica. Institut sto matologii. 2008;3(40):40‐43. (In Russ.).
- Apresyan, S.V.; Stepanov, A.G.; Suonio, V.K.; Vardanyan, B.A. Manufacture of facial prosthesis by three-dimensional printing. Stomatologiya. 2023, 102, 86–90, (In Russ.). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- D’heygere, V.; Mattheis, S.; Stähr, K.; Bastian, T.; Höing, B.; Lang, S.; Hussain, T. Epithetic nasal reconstruction after total rhinectomy: Oncologic outcomes, immediate and long-term adverse effects, and quality of life. J. Plast. Reconstr. Aesthet. Surg. 2021, 74, 625–631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Livaoğlu, M.; Karacal, N.; Bektaş, D.; Bahadir, O. Reconstruction of full-thickness nasal defect by free anterolateral thigh flap. Acta Otolaryngol. 2009, 129, 541–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Becker, C.; Becker, A.M.; Dahlem, K.K.K.; Offergeld, C.; Pfeiffer, J. Aesthetic and functional outcomes in patients with a nasal prosthesis. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2017, 46, 1446–1450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chipp, E.; Prinsloo, D.; Rayatt, S. Rhinectomy for the management of nasal malignancies. J. Laryngol. Otol. 2011, 125, 1033–1037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mimica, X.; Yu, Y.; McGill, M.; Barker, C.A.; McBride, S.; Ganly, I.; Cracchiolo, J.R.; Dunn, L.A.; Katabi, N.; Sine, K.; et al. Organ preservation for patients with anterior mucosal squamous cell carcinoma of the nasal cavity: Rhinectomy-free survival in those refusing surgery. Head Neck 2019, 41, 2741–2747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Girardi, F.M.; Hauth, L.A.; Abentroth, A.L. Total rhinectomy for nasal carcinomas. Braz. J. Otorhinolaryngol. 2020, 86, 763–766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krakowczyk, Ł.; Szymczyk, C.; Wierzgoń, J.; Oleś, K.; Smyczek, D.; Ulczok, R.; Donocik, K.; Hadasik, G.; Piotrowska, A.; Maciejewski, A. Microvascular nose reconstruction after extended tumor resection. Pol. Przegl. Chir. 2020, 92, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Papaspyrou, G.; Schick, B.; Schneider, M.; Al Kadah, B. Epithetic nasal reconstruction for nasal carcinoma: Retrospective analysis on 22 patients. Eur. Arch. Otorhinolaryngol. 2017, 274, 867–872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Shaye, D.A. The history of nasal reconstruction. Curr. Opin. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2021, 29, 259–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Korfage, A.; Raghoebar, G.M.; Noorda, W.D.; Plaat, B.E.; Vissink, A.; Visser, A. Recommendations for implant-retained nasal prostheses after ablative tumor surgery: Minimal surgical aftercare, high implant survival, and satisfied patients. Head Neck 2016, 38, 619–624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tricco, A.C.; Lillie, E.; Zarin, W.; O’Brien, K.K.; Colquhoun, H.; Levac, D.; Moher, D.; Peters, M.D.J.; Horsley, T.; Weeks, L.; et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann. Intern. Med. 2018, 169, 467–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lünenbürger, H.; Roknic, N.; Klein, M.; Wermker, K. Treatment Outcome of the Transfacial Titanium Epiplating System for Total Nasal Defects. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2016, 137, 405–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ribuffo, D.; Serratore, F.; Cigna, E.; Sorvillo, V.; Guerra, M.; Bucher, S.; Scuderi, N. Nasal reconstruction with the two stages vs three stages forehead flap. A three centres experience over ten years. Eur. Rev. Med. Pharmacol. Sci. 2012, 16, 1866–1872. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Seth, R.; Revenaugh, P.C.; Scharpf, J.; Shipchandler, T.Z.; Fritz, M.A. Free anterolateral thigh fascia lata flap for complex nasal lining defects. JAMA Facial Plast. Surg. 2013, 15, 21–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Agostini, T.; Perello, R.; Russo, G.L.; Spinelli, G. Through-and-through Nasal Reconstruction with the Bi-Pedicled Forehead Flap. Arch. Plast. Surg. 2013, 40, 748–753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paddack, A.C.; Frank, R.W.; Spencer, H.J.; Key, J.M.; Vural, E. Outcomes of paramedian forehead and nasolabial interpolation flaps in nasal reconstruction. Arch. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2012, 138, 367–371. [Google Scholar]
- Bolotin, M.V.; Sobolevskiy, V.Y.; Akhundov, A.A.; et al. Microsurgical reconstruction of maxillary defects after limited resections for malignant tumors. Opukholi golovy i shei = Head and Heck Tumors 2021, 11, 18–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saleh, D.B.; Dearden, A.S.; Smith, J.; Mizen, K.D.; Reid, J.; Eriksen, E.; Fourie, L. Single-stage nasal reconstruction with the islanded forehead flap. J. Plast. Reconstr. Aesthet. Surg. 2020, 73, 1692–1699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ethunandan, M.; Downie, I.; Flood, T. Implant-retained nasal prosthesis for reconstruction of large rhinectomy defects: The Salisbury experience. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2010, 39, 343–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Migliorelli, A.; Sgarzani, R.; Cammaroto, G.; De Vito, A.; Gessaroli, M.; Manuelli, M.; Ciorba, A.; Bianchini, C.; Pelucchi, S.; Meccariello, G. Reconstructive Options after Oncological Rhinectomy: State of the Art. Healthcare (Basel). 2023, 11, 1785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
- Quetz, J.; Ambrosch, P. Total nasal reconstruction: A 6-year experience with the three-stage forehead flap combined with the septal pivot flap. Facial Plast. Surg. 2011, 27, 266–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Subramaniam, T.; Lennon, P.; O’Neill, J.P.; Kinsella, J.; Timon, C. Total rhinectomy, a clinical review of nine cases. Ir. J. Med. Sci. 2016, 185, 757–760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Shah, J.; Patel, S.; Singh, B.; Wong, R. Jatin Shah’s Head and Neck Surgery and Oncology, 5th ed.; Elsevier Inc.: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Becker, C.; Kayser, G.; Pfeiffer, J. Squamous cell cancer of the nasal cavity: New insights and implications for diagnosis and treatment. Head Neck 2016, 38, 2112–2117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chabrillac, E.; Talawdekar, A.; Garikipati, S.; Varley, I.; Sionis, S.; Beasley, N.; Jackson, R. A single centre’s experience of 23 cases of total rhinectomy for the treatment of squamous cell carcinoma involving the nasal vestibule. Eur. Arch. Otorhinolaryngol. 2022, 279, 2069–2075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wang, C.C. Treatment of carcinoma of the nasal vestibule by irradiation. Cancer 1976, 38, 100–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lydiatt, W.M.; Patel, S.G.; O’Sullivan, B.; Brandwein, M.S.; Ridge, J.A.; Migliacci, J.C.; Loomis, A.M.; Shah, J.P. Head and Neck cancers-major changes in the American Joint Committee on cancer eighth edition cancer staging manual. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2017, 67, 122–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hussain, T.; Mattheis, S.; Dominas, N.; Hoing, B.; Lang, S.; Stuck, B.A. Regional recurrence in a case series of patients with carcinoma of the nasal cavity—Therapeutic implications. Rhinology 2017, 55, 355–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Faris, C.; Heiser, A.; Quatela, O.; Jackson, M.; Tessler, O.; Jowett, N.; Lee, L.N. Health utility of rhinectomy, surgical nasal reconstruction, and prosthetic rehabilitation. Laryngoscope 2020, 130, 1674–1679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hosal, S.A.; Aydin, C. Rhinectomy. In Operative Otolaryngology, 3rd ed.; Elsevier Inc.: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2018; Volume 2, pp. 674–680. [Google Scholar]
- Phillips, T.J. Total nasal reconstruction: A review of the past and present, with a peak into the future. Curr. Opin. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2019, 27, 420–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cannady, S.B.; Cook, T.A.; Wax, M.K. The total nasal defect and reconstruction. Facial Plast. Surg. Clin. N. Am. 2009, 17, 189–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]








| С++ | Writing software kernel, writing UI/UX interaction modules, interfacing with Windows operating system |
| C# | Comprehensive assembly of the entire project |
| Python | Automated assembly of virtual library modules |
| OpenGL HSLS | Shader language, for graphical visualization of objects |
| С | Creating functions to interact with shaders that require high speed |
| 287 CT | 50 CT | Men | Women | Children |
| 25 CT | 17 CT | 8 CT |
| Component | Properties |
|---|---|
| Urethandimethacrylate | A high molecular weight oligomer that determines the properties of the raw material and the finished structure after polymerization |
| Polyethylene glycol dimethacrylate | Bifunctional monomer, allows for optimum blend viscosity and reactivity |
| 2-hydroxyethylmethacrylate | Monofunctional monomer, also provides the desired viscosity of the finished material |
| Diphenyl (2,4,6-trimethylbenzoyl) phosphinoxidil Phenylbis (2,4,6-trimethylbenzoyl) phosphinoxide | Acts as a photoinitiator in the photopolymerization process |
| sample no. | h, mm | b, mm | A0, mm2 | Frr, N | Frtu, N | σrr, MPa | σrtu, MPa | εrr, % | E, MPa |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 3,91 | 10,36 | 40,51 | 45,07 | 24,70 | 1,11 | 0,61 | 50,1 | 3,10 |
| 2 | 3,95 | 10,51 | 41,51 | 65,34 | 20,24 | 1,57 | 0,49 | 75,8 | 3,13 |
| 3 | 3,87 | 10,65 | 41,22 | 57,06 | 20,21 | 1,38 | 0,49 | 65,4 | 3,42 |
| 4 | 3,89 | 9,97 | 38,78 | 48,85 | 19,34 | 1,26 | 0,50 | 58,6 | 3,31 |
| 5 | 3,96 | 10,34 | 40,95 | 68,17 | 20,13 | 1,66 | 0,49 | 73,8 | 3,73 |
| Sample | h, mm | b, mm | F1/d, N/mm | E, MPa |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 3,02 | 10,00 | 0,0385 | 4,37 |
| 2 | 3,03 | 10,07 | 0,0424 | 4,73 |
| 3 | 3,04 | 10,06 | 0,0628 | 6,94 |
| 4 | 3,03 | 10,07 | 0,0678 | 7,56 |
| 5 | 3,07 | 10,07 | 0,0545 | 5,85 |
| 6 | 3,06 | 10,05 | 0,0671 | 7,28 |
| Sample 1 | Sample 2 | Sample 3 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0,785 | 1,358 | 1,517 |
| 2 | 1,334 | 1,088 | 1,065 |
| 3 | 1,048 | 1,333 | 1,219 |
| 4 | 1,141 | 0,892 | 1,084 |
| 5 | 1,000 | 1,997 | 0,475 |
| Control | 0,392 | 0,397 | 0,397 |
| Cultures | CFU | Standard at 10⁷ | Lg7.0 | Index | Adhesion percentage | Characteristic |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| E.coli ATCC 25982 | 3 | 2,5 | 7,39 | 0,064 | 6,4 | low |
| St,aureus ATTC 6538 | 20 | 2,5 | 7,39 | 0,281 | 28,1 | low |
| C.albican ATTC 10231 | 1 | 2,5 | 7,39 | 0,14 | 14 | low |
| St. mutans 3003 | 4 | 2,5 | 7,39 | 0,252 | 25,2 | low |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).