Guided Implant Surgery in Oral Cancer Patients: Initial Clinical Experience from an Academic Point-of-Care Manufacturing Unit

TL;DR

This paper presents the initial clinical experience of using in-house 3D-printed surgical guides for implant surgery in oral cancer patients, showing improved efficiency and outcomes.

Contribution

The study introduces an academic point-of-care manufacturing unit for guided implant surgery in oral cancer rehabilitation, demonstrating its clinical feasibility and benefits.

Findings

All surgical guides were successfully 3D printed in-house using biocompatible resins, with no major complications.

Primary stability values allowed immediate or early loading of implants in irradiated and non-irradiated fields.

The POC approach reduced procedural time and reliance on external providers while meeting sterilization standards.

Abstract

Background and Objectives: Implant-supported rehabilitation after oral cancer surgery remains technically and biologically demanding due to altered anatomy, scar tissue, and prior radiotherapy. Digital workflows and hospital-based point-of-care (POC) manufacturing now enable personalized, prosthetically driven implant placement with static surgical guides fabricated within the clinical environment. This study reports the initial clinical experience of an academic POC manufacturing unit (UPAM3D) implementing static guided implant surgery in oral cancer patients and compares this approach with conventional outsourcing and dynamic navigation methods. Materials and Methods: A retrospective review of 30 consecutive cases (2021–2024) treated with POC-manufactured static guides was conducted using data from the UPAM3D registry. Each record included design, fabrication, and sterilization parameters compliant with ISO 13485 standards. Demographic, surgical, and prosthetic variables were analyzed, including anatomical site (maxilla or mandible), guide type, material, radiotherapy history, number of Ticare Implants®, and loading strategy. Results: All surgical guides were designed and 3D printed in-house using biocompatible resins (BioMed Clear, Dental SG, or LT Clear). The annual number of POC procedures increased progressively (2 → 6 → 6 → 16). Most cases involved oncologic reconstructions of the maxilla or mandible, including irradiated fields. When recorded, primary stability values (mean ISQ ≈ 79) allowed immediate or early loading (ISQ ≥ 70). No major intraoperative or postoperative complications occurred, and all guides met sterilization and traceability standards. Conclusions: Point-of-care manufacturing enables efficient, accurate, and patient-specific guided implant rehabilitation after oral cancer surgery, optimizing functional and esthetic outcomes while reducing procedural time and dependence on external providers. Integrating this process into clinical workflows supports personalized treatment planning and broadens access to advanced implant reconstruction within multidisciplinary oncology care.

Figures