Journal archive · Anatomy and nasal analysis · 2017
Patient-Specific Augmentation Rhinoplasty Using a Three-Dimensional Simulation Program and Three-Dimensional Printing
Choi YD, Kim Y, Park E.
What this paper says
Ten custom silicone nasal implants made from 3D printed molds matched their computer designs to within 0.07 mm, and 7 patients underwent surgery with scans confirming implant position.
Overview
Augmentation rhinoplasty adds height to the nose, and choosing the material and shape has long been done by hand. This study tested a system that designs an implant from the patient's own CT scan, 3D prints a negative mold, and casts silicone in it. The aim was to check whether the manufactured implant reproduces the design.
Sections of note
- Implants were designed with an in-house program using preoperative computed tomography.
- Negative molds were fabricated by a 3D printer and silicone injected into them.
- 10 actual silicone implants were made and compared against the virtual designs.
- Reproduction accuracy was within 0.07 mm, a difference of 0.17 percent plus or minus 0.11 percent.
- Accuracy was highest at the upper end of the implant and fell toward the lower end: 100 percent at the most cephalic point, 57.1 and 71.4 percent at the right and left points at the lower end of the nasal bone, 28.6 percent at each supratip point, and 0 percent at the most caudal point.
- 7 patients underwent surgery, with postoperative CT to confirm implant positioning. Level of evidence 4.
What it means for a patient
- The manufacturing step is accurate, particularly toward the top of the bridge, and least accurate at the tip end.
- This tests whether the implant matches its design, not whether patients looked better or were satisfied.
- Only 7 patients were operated on, and no aesthetic outcomes, complications, or follow-up are reported.
- The implant here is silicone, a synthetic material, which carries the usual risks of infection, movement, and extrusion.
Why this paper matters
Custom implant fabrication would remove the hand carving step and its dependence on surgeon experience. This is a feasibility and accuracy study, which is the necessary first stage. Clinical outcomes and long-term implant behavior remain untested.
Terms
- Augmentation rhinoplasty: An operation adding height or volume to the nose.
- Patient-specific implant: An implant designed from an individual patient's own scan.
- Computed tomography: An X-ray scan producing cross-sectional images used to build 3D models.
- Negative mold: A hollow form into which material is cast to produce the final shape.
- Cephalic: Toward the head, meaning the upper end; caudal means the lower end.
Summary written by rhinoplasty.cc from the abstract, 2026-09-09; not medical advice. The authors' own abstract follows.
From the abstract
“The convergence of three-dimensional (3D) simulation, tissue engineering, and 3D printing technology is creating a paradigm shift in plastic surgery. In augmentation rhinoplasty, determining the ideal material and design method has been a critical issue for many years. Thus, these technologies are expected to make…”
Excerpt; the full abstract is on PubMed.
Citation
Start here
What the rhinoplasty literature says on this paper's topic, cited line by line to PubMed.
Related papers
Same topic, 2017.
- ASJ 2017PMID 29025221
- ASJ 2017PMID 28364535
- ASJ Incidence and Preoperative Risk Factors for Major Complications in Aesthetic Rhinoplasty: Analysis of 4978 PatientsLayliev J, Gupta V, Kaoutzanis C et al.2017PMID 28472446Summary
- ASJ 2017PMID 28364534Summary
- APS Use of Computer Imaging in Rhinoplasty: A Survey of the Practices of Facial Plastic SurgeonsSingh P, Pearlman S2017PMID 28432415Summary
- FPS Interest in Aesthetic Rhinoplasty ScaleNaraghi M, Atari M2017PMID 28388802Summary
- FPS Management of the Cephalically Malpositioned Lower Lateral Crus in Aesthetic RhinoplastyKovacevic M, Friedman O, Riedel F et al.2017PMID 28962054
- FPS Optimal Costal Cartilage Graft Selection According to Cartilage Shape: Anatomical Considerations for RhinoplastyBender-Heine AN, Zdilla MJ, Russell ML et al.2017PMID 29195250Summary