Mandible FractureNCT05733221
3D Printed Models for Mandibular Fracture Repair
A study testing 3D Printed Model in people with Mandible Fracture and Maxillofacial Trauma, run by University of Cincinnati at 2 sites in United States.
Trial summary
The investigators will test the hypothesis that patients randomized to the intervention (3D printing with pre-bent plate) arm have less operative room time and less time for the critical part of the procedure than patients in the control arm (no 3D printing, current standards of care). Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 80 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Mandible Fracture, Maxillofacial Trauma
- What is being tested?
- 3D Printed Model
- Type of treatment
- Medical device
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 100 participants
- Where
- 2 sitesUnited States
- Study dates
- 11 Mar 2023to Dec 2027
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Not yet: the study is under way
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 to 80 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Patient ≥ 18 years of age
- Patients who have received either a cone beam or conventional CT
- Admitted through University of Cincinnati Hospital and Medical Center emergency department
- All isolated mandible fractures referred to University of Cincinnati Hospital Oral \& maxillofacial surgery clinic
- Surgical team members from the division of plastic and otolaryngology
Who cannot join
- Patient < 18 years of age
- Patients who have neither cone beam nor conventional CT
- Patients requiring a repeat procedure
- Unexpected exposure of hardware
Trial locations and contacts
2 sites in 1 country.
United States2 sites
University of Cincinnati Medical Center
Cincinnati, Ohio, 45219
UC Health Holmes Hospital
Cincinnati, Ohio, 45220
About this study
Official title: Determining the Ease of Utilizing 3D Printed Models to Aide in Isolated Mandibular Fracture Repair
The investigators will test the hypothesis that patients randomized to the intervention (3D printing with pre-bent plate) arm have less operative room time and less time for the critical part of the procedure than patients in the control arm (no 3D printing, current standards of care). Personalized medicine and care for fracture treatment.
Read the detailed description
The goal of treatment is to re-establish the patient's preinjury dental occlusion and facial harmony. Fractures that are nondisplaced and exhibit no occlusal changes may be amenable to nonsurgical management, but most mandible fractures will require stabilization for satisfactory healing and to restore pretraumatic maxillomandibular orientation. Various treatment strategies have been described and vary widely depending on the fracture location and surgeon's preference. The patient's demographics, comorbidities, dentition, and fracture characterization will all influence the choice of fixation by the treating surgeon.
There are very few randomized control trials that show outcomes when 3D printing is used for intervention planning and performing a procedure. These data are essential to establish value of 3D printing as a clinical service. There is also anecdotal evidence that a 3D printed model of a mandible fracture can be useful for pre-operative planning because the oral and maxillofacial surgeon can better assess the geometry of the bone lesions and can pre-bend fixation plates before the procedure. This hypothetically decreases the amount of time in the operating room.
The investigators propose a parallel design randomized control trial to study the value of 3D printing for preoperative planning in patients with a fracture of the mandible who require open reduction, internal fixation. The study will be split into two arms: 1) Patients that will have a 3D model generated for the surgical procedure 2) The control group who will follow normal standards of care as outlined above and won't have the additional 3D model created pre-operatively.
- Conditions
- Mandible Fracture, Maxillofacial Trauma
- Being tested
- 3D Printed Model
- Keywords
- 3D Printing, Personalized Medicine, Maxillofacial Trauma
- Medical subject headings
- Mandibular Fractures
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
3D Printed ModelDevice
3D Printed Model generated pre-operatively of the patients mandible.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| 3D Model Generated | Experimental | Patient will undergo an Open Reduction and Internal Fixation preformed by a surgeon who had pre-operative access to a 3D model printed to help pre-bend hardware. Receives: Device: 3D Printed Model |
| Normal Standards of Care without Aide of Model | No intervention | Patient will undergo standard Open Reduction and Internal Fixation by a surgeon who did not have a pre-operative 3D model. |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Total time in the OR
Time in the OR considered critical part of the procedure by the Oral \& Maxillofacial Surgery Staff
Measured: Total procedural time
Subjective outcome to surgeon
Surgeon overall satisfaction with utilizing the 3D generated model, obtained via Likert Scale Questions completed post-operatively. The investigators are going to use the Likert questions to develop a numerical scoring system and report that data as "raw" Likert scores. Likert questions and conversion of specialists' responses to Anatomic Model Utility Points (AMUPs). Responses of "strongly disagree", "disagree", and "neutral" were assigned 0 AMUP points. Responses to preprocedural confidence are assigned negative points, to effectively subtract the impact of the anatomic model post- versus pre-procedure. The maximum AMUP for each patient was 500.
Measured: Up to 2 days post-procedure
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted17 Feb 2023
- Study start11 Mar 2023
- Primary completionDec 2026 (estimated)
- Study completionDec 2027 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (25)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Mandible FractureStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Model description
- The investigators propose a parallel design randomized control trial to study the value of 3D printing for preoperative planning in patients with a fracture of the mandible who require open reduction, internal fixation. The study will be split into two arms: 1) Patients that will have a 3D model generated for the surgical procedure 2) The control group who will follow normal standards of care as outlined above and won't have the additional 3D model created pre-operatively.
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Participant
- Enrolment
- 100 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of Cincinnati
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Deepak Krishnan, University of Cincinnati
- Investigators
- Deepak G Krishnan, DDS, Principal investigator, University of Cincinnati
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05733221
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 2022-0794
- Status last verified
- Aug 2026
- First submitted
- 10 Jan 2023
- Last updated
- 1 Sep 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- Yes
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Weiser TG, Regenbogen SE, Thompson KD, Haynes AB, Lipsitz SR, Berry WR, Gawande AA. An estimation of the global volume of surgery: a modelling strategy based on available data. Lancet. 2008 Jul 12;372(9633):139-144. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60878-8. Epub 2008 Jun 24.
PubMed 18582931de Vries EN, Ramrattan MA, Smorenburg SM, Gouma DJ, Boermeester MA. The incidence and nature of in-hospital adverse events: a systematic review. Qual Saf Health Care. 2008 Jun;17(3):216-23. doi: 10.1136/qshc.2007.023622.
PubMed 18519629Visser A, Geboers B, Gouma DJ, Goslings JC, Ubbink DT. Predictors of surgical complications: A systematic review. Surgery. 2015 Jul;158(1):58-65. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2015.01.012. Epub 2015 Feb 27.
PubMed 25731783Cheng H, Clymer JW, Po-Han Chen B, Sadeghirad B, Ferko NC, Cameron CG, Hinoul P. Prolonged operative duration is associated with complications: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Surg Res. 2018 Sep;229:134-144. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2018.03.022. Epub 2018 Apr 24.
PubMed 29936980Adi M, Ogden GR, Chisholm DM. An analysis of mandibular fractures in Dundee, Scotland (1977 to 1985). Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1990 Jun;28(3):194-9. doi: 10.1016/0266-4356(90)90088-3.
PubMed 2135661Telfer MR, Jones GM, Shepherd JP. Trends in the aetiology of maxillofacial fractures in the United Kingdom (1977-1987). Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1991 Aug;29(4):250-5. doi: 10.1016/0266-4356(91)90192-8.
PubMed 1911673Chrcanovic BR, Abreu MH, Freire-Maia B, Souza LN. 1,454 mandibular fractures: a 3-year study in a hospital in Belo Horizonte, Brazil. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2012 Feb;40(2):116-23. doi: 10.1016/j.jcms.2011.03.012. Epub 2011 Mar 31.
PubMed 21458284Pickrell BB, Serebrakian AT, Maricevich RS. Mandible Fractures. Semin Plast Surg. 2017 May;31(2):100-107. doi: 10.1055/s-0037-1601374.
PubMed 28496390AO Foundation. AO Surgery reference. Available at: https://www2.aofoundation.org/.
Ellis E 3rd, Miles BA. Fractures of the mandible: a technical perspective. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007 Dec;120(7 Suppl 2):76S-89S. doi: 10.1097/01.prs.0000260721.74357.e7.
PubMed 18090731Nishioka GJ, Van Sickels JE. Transoral plating of mandibular angle fractures: a technique. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1988 Nov;66(5):531-5. doi: 10.1016/0030-4220(88)90370-2.
PubMed 3200555Ellis E 3rd. A study of 2 bone plating methods for fractures of the mandibular symphysis/body. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011 Jul;69(7):1978-87. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2011.01.032. Epub 2011 May 6.
PubMed 21549485Agnihotri A, Prabhu S, Thomas S. A comparative analysis of the efficacy of cortical screws as lag screws and miniplates for internal fixation of mandibular symphyseal region fractures: a randomized prospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014 Jan;43(1):22-8. doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2013.07.001. Epub 2013 Aug 6.
PubMed 23928155King BJ, Park EP, Christensen BJ, Danrad R. On-Site 3-Dimensional Printing and Preoperative Adaptation Decrease Operative Time for Mandibular Fracture Repair. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018 Sep;76(9):1950.e1-1950.e8. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2018.05.009. Epub 2018 May 15.
PubMed 29859953Furr AM, Schweinfurth JM, May WL. Factors associated with long-term complications after repair of mandibular fractures. Laryngoscope. 2006 Mar;116(3):427-30. doi: 10.1097/01.MLG.0000194844.87268.ED.
PubMed 16540903
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 1 Sep 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Determining the Ease of Utilizing 3D Printed Models to Aide in Isolated Mandibular Fracture Repair
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05733221
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 2022-0794
- Conditions
- Mandible Fracture, Maxillofacial Trauma
- Keywords
- 3D Printing, Personalized Medicine, Maxillofacial Trauma
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Active, not recruiting
- Enrolment
- 100 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- University of CincinnatiUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 11 Mar 2023 (actual)
- Primary completion
- Dec 2026 (estimated)
- Study completion
- Dec 2027 (estimated)
- First posted
- 17 Feb 2023 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The investigators will test the hypothesis that patients randomized to the intervention (3D printing with pre-bent plate) arm have less operative room time and less time for the critical part of the procedure than patients in the control arm (no 3D printing, current standards of care). Personalized medicine and care for fracture treatment.
Detailed description
The goal of treatment is to re-establish the patient's preinjury dental occlusion and facial harmony. Fractures that are nondisplaced and exhibit no occlusal changes may be amenable to nonsurgical management, but most mandible fractures will require stabilization for satisfactory healing and to restore pretraumatic maxillomandibular orientation. Various treatment strategies have been described and vary widely depending on the fracture location and surgeon's preference. The patient's demographics, comorbidities, dentition, and fracture characterization will all influence the choice of fixation by the treating surgeon.
There are very few randomized control trials that show outcomes when 3D printing is used for intervention planning and performing a procedure. These data are essential to establish value of 3D printing as a clinical service. There is also anecdotal evidence that a 3D printed model of a mandible fracture can be useful for pre-operative planning because the oral and maxillofacial surgeon can better assess the geometry of the bone lesions and can pre-bend fixation plates before the procedure. This hypothetically decreases the amount of time in the operating room.
The investigators propose a parallel design randomized control trial to study the value of 3D printing for preoperative planning in patients with a fracture of the mandible who require open reduction, internal fixation. The study will be split into two arms: 1) Patients that will have a 3D model generated for the surgical procedure 2) The control group who will follow normal standards of care as outlined above and won't have the additional 3D model created pre-operatively.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (participant)
- Number of arms
- 2
- Model description
- The investigators propose a parallel design randomized control trial to study the value of 3D printing for preoperative planning in patients with a fracture of the mandible who require open reduction, internal fixation. The study will be split into two arms: 1) Patients that will have a 3D model generated for the surgical procedure 2) The control group who will follow normal standards of care as outlined above and won't have the additional 3D model created pre-operatively.
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| 3D Model Generated | Experimental | Device: 3D Printed ModelPatient will undergo an Open Reduction and Internal Fixation preformed by a surgeon who had pre-operative access to a 3D model printed to help pre-bend hardware. |
| Normal Standards of Care without Aide of Model | No intervention | –Patient will undergo standard Open Reduction and Internal Fixation by a surgeon who did not have a pre-operative 3D model. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 80 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (5 listed)
- Patient ≥ 18 years of age
- Patients who have received either a cone beam or conventional CT
- Admitted through University of Cincinnati Hospital and Medical Center emergency department
- All isolated mandible fractures referred to University of Cincinnati Hospital Oral \& maxillofacial surgery clinic
- Surgical team members from the division of plastic and otolaryngology
Key exclusion criteria (4 listed)
- Patient < 18 years of age
- Patients who have neither cone beam nor conventional CT
- Patients requiring a repeat procedure
- Unexpected exposure of hardware
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| 3D Printed Model3D Printed Model generated pre-operatively of the patients mandible. | Device | 3D Model Generated |
Primary outcome
Total time in the OR
Time frame: Total procedural time
Time in the OR considered critical part of the procedure by the Oral \& Maxillofacial Surgery Staff
Subjective outcome to surgeon
Time frame: Up to 2 days post-procedure
Surgeon overall satisfaction with utilizing the 3D generated model, obtained via Likert Scale Questions completed post-operatively. The investigators are going to use the Likert questions to develop a numerical scoring system and report that data as "raw" Likert scores. Likert questions and conversion of specialists' responses to Anatomic Model Utility Points (AMUPs). Responses of "strongly disagree", "disagree", and "neutral" were assigned 0 AMUP points. Responses to preprocedural confidence are assigned negative points, to effectively subtract the impact of the anatomic model post- versus pre-procedure. The maximum AMUP for each patient was 500.
Results and safety
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 1 Sep 2026.
- Background: PubMed 18582931Weiser TG, Regenbogen SE, Thompson KD, Haynes AB, Lipsitz SR, Berry WR, Gawande AA. An estimation of the global volume of surgery: a modelling strategy based on available data. Lancet. 2008 Jul 12;372(9633):139-144. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60878-8. Epub 2008 Jun 24.
- Background: PubMed 18519629de Vries EN, Ramrattan MA, Smorenburg SM, Gouma DJ, Boermeester MA. The incidence and nature of in-hospital adverse events: a systematic review. Qual Saf Health Care. 2008 Jun;17(3):216-23. doi: 10.1136/qshc.2007.023622.
- Background: PubMed 25731783Visser A, Geboers B, Gouma DJ, Goslings JC, Ubbink DT. Predictors of surgical complications: A systematic review. Surgery. 2015 Jul;158(1):58-65. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2015.01.012. Epub 2015 Feb 27.
- Background: PubMed 29936980Cheng H, Clymer JW, Po-Han Chen B, Sadeghirad B, Ferko NC, Cameron CG, Hinoul P. Prolonged operative duration is associated with complications: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Surg Res. 2018 Sep;229:134-144. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2018.03.022. Epub 2018 Apr 24.
- Background: PubMed 2135661Adi M, Ogden GR, Chisholm DM. An analysis of mandibular fractures in Dundee, Scotland (1977 to 1985). Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1990 Jun;28(3):194-9. doi: 10.1016/0266-4356(90)90088-3.
- Background: PubMed 1911673Telfer MR, Jones GM, Shepherd JP. Trends in the aetiology of maxillofacial fractures in the United Kingdom (1977-1987). Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1991 Aug;29(4):250-5. doi: 10.1016/0266-4356(91)90192-8.
- Background: PubMed 21458284Chrcanovic BR, Abreu MH, Freire-Maia B, Souza LN. 1,454 mandibular fractures: a 3-year study in a hospital in Belo Horizonte, Brazil. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2012 Feb;40(2):116-23. doi: 10.1016/j.jcms.2011.03.012. Epub 2011 Mar 31.
- Background: PubMed 28496390Pickrell BB, Serebrakian AT, Maricevich RS. Mandible Fractures. Semin Plast Surg. 2017 May;31(2):100-107. doi: 10.1055/s-0037-1601374.
- BackgroundAO Foundation. AO Surgery reference. Available at: https://www2.aofoundation.org/.
- Background: PubMed 18090731Ellis E 3rd, Miles BA. Fractures of the mandible: a technical perspective. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007 Dec;120(7 Suppl 2):76S-89S. doi: 10.1097/01.prs.0000260721.74357.e7.
- Background: PubMed 3200555Nishioka GJ, Van Sickels JE. Transoral plating of mandibular angle fractures: a technique. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1988 Nov;66(5):531-5. doi: 10.1016/0030-4220(88)90370-2.
- Background: PubMed 21549485Ellis E 3rd. A study of 2 bone plating methods for fractures of the mandibular symphysis/body. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011 Jul;69(7):1978-87. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2011.01.032. Epub 2011 May 6.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Mandible Fracture
Recruiting
Optimized Osteosynthesis: Bone Mineral Density Recovery in Mandibular Body Fractures Using Patient-Specific Versus Conventional Plates
Mandibular Fractures
Not yet recruiting
Clinical And Radiographic Assessment of H-shaped Bone Plates in Management of Body and Angle Mandibular Fractures
Mandibular Angle Fractures, Mandibular Body Fractures
Recruiting
Occlusal Assessment of Pediatric Mandibular Fractures Managed by 3D-Printed Acrylic Occlusal Cap Splint: A Case Series
Pediatric Mandibular Fracture
Active, not recruiting
Fixation of Mandibular Angle Fracture Using 3D Titanium Miniplate Versus Standard Two Plate Fixation
Mandible Fracture, Force Measurement
Recruiting
Custom-Made Titanium Plates Versus Custom-Made Polyether Ether Ketone (PEEK) Plates
Mandibular Fractures
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Deepak G Krishnan, DDS principal investigator
University of Cincinnati
2 sites in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing 3D Printed Model in people with Mandible Fracture and Maxillofacial Trauma, run by University of Cincinnati at 2 sites in United States.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 5 inclusion and 4 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: under way, not looking for participants, as of the sponsor's last update on 1 Sep 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 2 sites in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Total time in the OR (time frame: Total procedural time). The study lists 2 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT05733221, which also lists 25 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 1 Sep 2026.