The Usefulness of 3D-printed Nasal Implant Based on Virtual Plastic Simulation on Asian Rhinoplasty: A 1-Year Follow-Up Study

Suh MK, Won JY, Kim YH, Hur JY, Park SH, Moon HK, Lee WJ.

PubMed 40775193 Publisher (DOI)Free full text (PMC)

What this paper says

In 50 Asian patients, a nasal implant custom-printed from a virtual surgical simulation still lay parallel to the nasal bone at one year, 0.71 mm from it on average, and matched the planned result to within about 0.6 mm.

Overview

Off-the-shelf silicone implants do not fit every nose. The Korean authors planned each rhinoplasty in 3D simulation, printed a patient-specific implant, and checked at one year with photographs and cone-beam CT whether the implant fit the bone and whether the result matched the simulation. Satisfaction was measured with ROE and GAIS.

Sections of note

50 patients; CBCT and photographs before surgery and at one year.
Implant remained parallel to the nasal bone, average distance 0.71 mm on sagittal view.
Difference between simulated and actual implant-to-skin distance: about 0.01 mm over bone, 0.61 mm over cartilage.
Surgeon satisfaction GAIS 1.34; patient ROE rose by 60%.
Level of Evidence IV.

What it means for a patient

A custom implant can reproduce a computer preview with sub-millimetre accuracy over the bone.
At one year the implant had not shifted in this series.
Implants carry long-term risks (infection, extrusion, contracture) that a one-year study cannot assess.

Why this paper matters

It shows that virtual planning and 3D printing can translate into a physically verified result. Limits: 50 patients, one year, single centre, no comparison with standard implants.

Terms

Patient-specific implant: an implant manufactured to fit one person's anatomy.
Cone-beam CT (CBCT): a low-dose 3D X-ray scan.
Sagittal view: a side-on cross-section.
GAIS: Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale, a rating from -1 (worse) to 3 (very much improved).
ROE: Rhinoplasty Outcome Evaluation satisfaction questionnaire.

Summary written by rhinoplasty.cc from the abstract, 2026-09-08; not medical advice. The authors' own abstract follows.

Abstract

Background: Advances in three-dimensional (3D) imaging simulation surgery and 3D-printing have led to the development of patient-specific implants for Asian rhinoplasty. In this study, we present the results of 50 patients who received patient-specific nasal implants after virtual plastic surgery for rhinoplasty.

Methods: Facial photographs and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scan images were obtained preoperatively and at one year postoperatively. We examined whether the patient-specific nasal implant fit exactly well with the nasal bone and was anatomically aligned one year after surgery and how much preoperative virtual simulation surgery matched postoperative clinical results. Additionally, patient and operator satisfaction were evaluated using the Rhinoplasty Outcome Evaluation (ROE) questionnaire and Global Aesthetic Improvement Satisfaction (GAIS).

Results: The patient-specific nasal implant was anatomically consistent with the surface structure and was aligned with the nasal bone even one year after insertion. The nasal implant remained parallel to the nasal bone one year postoperatively, with an average distance of 0.71 mm in the sagittal view. There was no statistically significant difference in the distance measured from the implant undersurface to the nasal dorsal skin. The difference in distance was approximately 0.01 mm in the bone region and 0.61 mm in the cartilage region. This indicates that the patient's request was realized by accurately reflecting it in the virtual plastic surgery simulation and patient-specific implants. Additionally, there was an increase in researcher satisfaction (GAIS=1.34) and patient satisfaction (ROE) after surgery by 60%.

Conclusions: Patient-specific nasal implants fabricated using virtual surgery simulation may be an alternative material for augmentation rhinoplasty.

Level Of Evidence Iv: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Abstract as indexed by PubMed; the article is open access (PubMed Central).