Oral and maxillofacial surgeons’ views on the adoption of additive manufacturing: findings from a nationwide survey

TL;DR

This study explores how oral and maxillofacial surgeons in Sweden view additive manufacturing technology, finding generally positive attitudes despite no significant differences based on hospital type or experience.

Contribution

The study provides insights into surgeons' perceptions of additive manufacturing in OMFS, highlighting differences in individual characteristics based on AM experience.

Findings

Surgeons from university and non-university hospitals showed no significant differences in views on AM.

Experience with AM significantly influenced individual characteristics in surgeons' perceptions.

Overall, surgeons have a favorable attitude toward adopting additive manufacturing in OMFS.

Abstract

Hospitals in many European countries have implemented Additive Manufacturing (AM) technology for multiple Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (OMFS) applications. Although the technology is widely implemented, surgeons also play a crucial role in whether a hospital will adopt the technology for surgical procedures. The study has two objectives: (1) to investigate how hospital type (university or non-university hospital) influences surgeons' views on AM, and (2) to explore how previous experience with AM (AM experience or not) influences surgeons' views on AM.

An online questionnaire to capture surgeons’ views was designed, consisting of 11 Likert scale questions formulated according to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). The questionnaire was sent to OMF surgeons through the channel provided by the Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery in Sweden. Data were analyzed using the Mann–Whitney U test to identify significant differences among OMF surgeons in terms of organizational form (i.e., university hospital or non-university hospital) and experience of AM (i.e., AM experience or no-experience).

In total, 31 OMF surgeons responded to the survey. Views of surgeons from universities and non-universities, as well as between surgeons with experience and no-experience, did not show significant differences in the 11 questions captured across five CFIR domains. However, the “individual characteristics” domain in CFIR, consisting of three questions, did show significant differences between surgeons’ experience with AM and no-experience (P-values: P = 0.01, P = 0.01, and P = 0.04).

Surgeons, whether affiliated with university hospitals or non-university hospitals and regardless of their prior experience with AM, generally exhibit a favorable attitude towards AM. However, there were significant differences in terms of individual characteristics between those who had prior experience with AM and those who did not.

This investigation facilitates the implementation of AM in OMFS by reporting on the views of OMF surgeons on AM.