**Author details**

Kaida Xiao1\*, Sophie Wuerger1 , Faraedon Mostafa3 , Ali Sohaib2 and Julian M Yates2

\*Address all correspondence to: kaidaxiao@yahoo.co.uk

1 Department of Psychological Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK

2 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, University of Man‐ chester, Manchester, UK

3 Department of Periodontology, School of Dentistry, University of Sulaimani, Slemani, Iraq

## **References**


[3] Leonardi A, Buonaccorsi S, Pellacchia V, Moricca LM, Indrizzi E, Fini G, Maxillofacial prosthetic rehabilitation using extraoral implants. J Craniofac Surg. 2008;19:398–405.

ated with these developments has been widely accepted and is considered user friendly and intuitive, the introduction of such technology for soft tissue prostheses should not be difficult. Another consideration may be the limited availability of virtual CAD models that may be required if existing patient data did not exist. However, these are becoming more available and given that once patients have had parts made existing electronic data can also be used for repeat prostheses for the same patient or adapted for new patients. Another limitation may be the initial start‐up costs, which are not insignificant. At present, equipment costs are high, however, with the advancement of new printing techniques and the emergence of numerous manufacturers in the market place, costs are dropping significantly. Furthermore, collabora‐ tive or 'hub and spoke' arrangements may mean that the data capture and manipulation of missing parts could be undertaken at a local/regional level, whilst the manufacturing process could be centralised to a few specialist production centres. Given that the data will be stored electronically, electronic communications are largely effortless, and similar protocols are seen

In conclusion, the utilisation of modern manufacturing technologies including 3D printing can provide a quality product quickly and at a significantly reduced cost, labour and patient inconvenience. As detailed, this is a viable method for manufacturing prosthesis using commercially available equipment and software and could easily be implemented clinically.

, Ali Sohaib2

and Julian M Yates2

, Faraedon Mostafa3

1 Department of Psychological Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK

2 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, University of Man‐

3 Department of Periodontology, School of Dentistry, University of Sulaimani, Slemani, Iraq

[1] Worthington P, Branemark P, Advanced osseointegration surgery: applications in the

[2] Khan Z, Gettleman L, Jacobson CS, Conference report: materials research in maxillo‐

\*Address all correspondence to: kaidaxiao@yahoo.co.uk

maxillofacial region. Chicago: Quintessence, 1992.

facial prosthetics. J Dent Res. 1992;71:1541–2.

with other manufacturing industries, this should be easily achievable.

**Author details**

106 New Trends in 3D Printing

Kaida Xiao1\*, Sophie Wuerger1

chester, Manchester, UK

**References**


[32] Paravina RD, Majkic G, Del Mar Perez M, Kiat‐amnuay S, Color difference thresholds of maxillofacial skin replications. J Prosthodont 2009;18:618–625.

[17] Xiao K, Zardawi F, van Noort R, Yates JM, Developing a 3D colour image reproduction system for additive manufacturing of facial prostheses. Int J Adv Manuf Technol.

[18] Zardawi F, Xiao K, van Noort R, Yates JM, Mechanical properties of 3D printed facial prostheses compared to handmade silicone polymer prostheses. Eur J Sci Res.

[20] Gerhardt J, Hardeberg JY, Spectral color reproduction minimizing spectral and

[21] Ciocca L, Scotti R, CAD‐CAM generated ear cast by means of a laser scanner and rapid

[22] He Y, Xue G, Fu J, Fabrication of low cost soft tissue prostheses with the desktop 3D

[23] Holberg C, Schwenzer K, Mahaini L, RudzkiJanson I, Accuracy of facial plaster casts.

[24] Liacouras P, Garnes K, Roman N, Petrich A, Grant GT, Designing and manufacturing an auricular prosthesis using computed tomography, 3‐dimensional photographic imaging, and additive manufacturing: a clinical report. J Prosthet Dent. 2011;105:78–

[25] CIE Publ 159:2004. A Color Appearance Model for Color Management Systems. Vienna,

[26] ISO 15076‐1:2005. Image technology color management—Architecture, profile format

[27] CIE S 014‐3/E:2011 (ISO 11664‐3:2012), Colorimetry—Part 3: CIE Tristimulus Values,

[28] Kaida Xiao, Julian M Yates, Faraedon Zardawi, Suchitra Sueeprasan, Ningfang Liao, Liz Gill, Changjun Li, Sophie Wuerger (2016) Characterising the variations in ethnic skin colours: a new calibrated data base for human skin. Skin Research and Technology

[29] Hong G, Luo MR, Rhodes PA, A study of digital camera colorimetric characterization

[30] Xiao K, Liao N, Zardawi F, Liu H, Noort RV, Yang Z, Huang M, Yates JM, An investi‐ gation of Chinese skin colour and appearance for skin colour reproduction. Chin Opt

[31] CIE S 014‐4/E:2007 (ISO 11664‐4:2008), Colorimetry—Part 4: CIE 1976 L\*a\*b\* Colour Spaces, STANDARD by Commission Internationale de L'Eclairage, 12/01/2008.

STANDARD by Commission Internationale de L'Eclairage, 05/01/2012.

based on polynomial modelling. Color Res Appl. 2001;26(1):76–84.

[19] Fairchild MD, Color Appearance Models. 3rd edition. Wiley. 2013.

perceptual color differences. Color Res Appl. 2008;33:494–504.

prototyping machine. J Prosthet Dent. 2004;92:591–595.

2014;70:2043–2049.

printer. Sci Rep. 2014;4:6973.

Angle Orthod. 2006;76:605–611.

Austria: CIE Central Bureau, 2004.

and data structure—Part 1: Based on ICC.1:2004–10.

2015;11:12.

108 New Trends in 3D Printing

82.

(in press)

Lett. 2012;10:083301 1–5.

