Therefore, the use of both medical XCT and laboratory XCT is more common and easily accessible. However, the data obtained with nCT are complementary with the data obtained from XCT ( Sutton, 2008; Mays et al., 2017; Zanolli et al., 2020). This increases the analytical capacity to visualize internal structures that only with X-rays are impossible to detect.

de Vries, L.S.; Gunardi, H.; Barth, P.G.; Bok, L.A.; Verboon-Maciolek, M.A.; Groenendaal, F. The spectrum of cranial ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging abnormalities in congenital cytomegalovirus infection. Neuropediatrics 2004, 35, 113–119. [ Google Scholar] [ CrossRef] Across this section, we have highlighted several tools that can be used in automatic mode. We recommend using “mesh doctor” at the end of the mesh postprocessing to assess if there are artifacts in the mesh (small triangle intersections, spikes, or small holes). If the mesh has a very low number of triangles, we can use the “reintegration” tool, always setting the limits of the topology. The “uniformity” tool is useful to remove very aggressive triangles, and one has to select the aggressive prisms option with a medium number of iterations and a low effect level to remove them. With this procedure, we avoid large deviations of the mesh with the original topology.

Conflict of Interest

Skervin, A.; Levy, B. Management of Common Surgical Complications. Surgery 2023, 41, 76–80. [ Google Scholar] [ CrossRef] Lo JL, Chen YR, Tseng CS, Lee MY. Computer-aided reconstruction of traumatic fronto-orbital osseous defects: aesthetic considerations. Chang Gung Medical Journal.2004; 27(4): 283–291. pmid:15239195 Chun, H.J.; Yi, H.J. Efficacy and Safety of Early Cranioplasty, at Least within 1 Month. J. Craniofac. Surg. 2011, 22, 203–207. [ Google Scholar] [ CrossRef]

Singh, D.K.; Shankar, D.; Yadav, K.; Kaif, M.; Singh, R.K. Use of a Single Standard Skull Model for Preparation of PMMA-Based Cranioplasty Flap: A Novel Low-Cost Technique. Turk. Neurosurg. 2023. [ Google Scholar] [ CrossRef] Among all alloplastic materials, titanium continues to be the mainstream material used in cranioplasty due to its excellent biocompatibility, resistance to infection, high strength to weight ratio, corrosion resistance, non-magnetic properties, and toughness ( Niinomi, 1998; Zhang and Chen, 2019). Titanium plates for cranial defect reconstructions were first described in 1974 ( Gordon and Blair, 1974). Since then, cranial reconstructions have witnessed tremendous progress in using computer-aided design (CAD) methods ( Cabraja et al., 2009; Wiggins et al., 2013; Bonda et al., 2015). Additive manufacturing (AM) or three-dimensional (3D) printing of titanium patient-specific implants (PSIs) made its way into cranioplasty, improving the clinical outcomes in complex surgical procedures ( Cho et al., 2015; Park et al., 2016; Moiduddin et al., 2019; Sharma et al., 2020). Furthermore, there has been a significant interest within the medical community in redesigning implants based on natural analogies ( Tejero et al., 2014; Brett et al., 2017). The lignite mosaic stripes alternate with bands of bright blue turquoise and the eyes are made of two orbs of polished iron pyrite framed by rings made of white conch (Strombus) shell. The nasal cavity is lined with plates of bright red Spondylus (thorny oyster) shell. The software and the printing costs were covered by the University Hospital Basel, Medical Additive Manufacturing (SwissMAM) research group at the Department of Biomedical Engineering, the University of Basel, and the University of Applied Sciences Northwestern Switzerland FHNW, Muttenz. The open-access article processing charges were supported by the Werner Siemens Foundation through the MIRACLE project. Conflict of InterestAdditive Manufacturing Processes for the Fabrication of Skull Biomodel and Biomimetic Patient-Specific Cranial Prostheses Skull modify–This section loads the dataset once and handles its preparation. The user can apply transformations in form of rotation, translation, applying a transform matrix and much more. Further, the skull can be cut with a plane, where just one side of this plane will be visible. This option is necessary to get a view on the inner parts of the skull, for example, the inner edges. The output is a modified skull. van der Meer WJ, Bos RR, Vissink A, Visser A. Digital planning of cranial implants. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2013; 51(5): 450–452. pmid:23266152 Vitali, M.; Marasco, S.; Romenskaya, T.; Elia, A.; Longhitano, Y.; Zanza, C.; Abenavoli, L.; Scarpellini, E.; Bertuccio, A.; Barbanera, A. Decompressive Craniectomy in Severe Traumatic Brain Injury: The Intensivist’s Point of View. Diseases 2023, 11, 22. [ Google Scholar] [ CrossRef] Replogle RE, Lanzino G, Francel P, Henson S, Lin K, Jane JA. Acrylic cranioplasty using miniplate struts. Neurosurgery 1996; 39(4): 747–749. pmid:8880768

Alkhaibary, A.; Alharbi, A.; Alnefaie, N.; Almubarak, A.O.; Aloraidi, A.; Khairy, S. Cranioplasty: A Comprehensive Review of the History, Materials, Surgical Aspects, and Complications. World Neurosurg. 2020, 139, 445–452. [ Google Scholar] [ CrossRef] [ PubMed] Meglioli, M.; Naveau, A.; Macaluso, G.M.; Orsi, M.; Barone, M.; Cucchi, A.; Cossellu, G.; Marchetti, C.; Masotto, N.; Panciera, A.; et al. 3D printed bone models in oral and cranio-maxillofacial surgery: A systematic review. 3D Print. Med. 2020, 6, 30. [ Google Scholar] [ CrossRef] Editor: Peter M.A. van Ooijen, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, NETHERLANDS This section describes the most common methods used for reconstructing the 3D models of fossil skulls following different sources (i.e., Zollikofer and Ponce de León, 2005; Abel et al., 2012; Cunningham et al., 2014; Sutton et al., 2014; Tallman et al., 2014; Lautenschlager, 2016; Mostakhdemin et al., 2016; Gunz et al., 2020). Moreover, for a correct anatomical reconstruction, one usually has to use different specific bibliographic sources on the anatomy of the group studied. In our case, we have followed Moore (1982) and Novacek (1993), and we have also relied on the anatomy of the skull of living bears, especially those species with a closer phylogenetic relationship with the cave bear (i.e., U. arctos, Ursus americanus, Ursus maritimus, and Ursus thibetanus).Ho, C.L.; McAdory, L. Postoperative Imaging of Complications Following Cranial Implants. J. Belg. Soc. Radiol. 2019, 103, 81. [ Google Scholar] [ CrossRef] [ PubMed] Li, J.; Gsaxner, C.; Pepe, A.; Cheng, G.; Egger, J.; Schopper, C.; Schmidhammer, R.; Gaggl, A. Synthetic skull bone defects for automatic patient-specific craniofacial implant design. Sci. Data 2021, 8, 36. [ Google Scholar] [ CrossRef] Gopi M, Krishnan S, Silva CT. Surface reconstruction based on lower dimensional localized Delaunay triangulation. Computer Graphics Forum 2000; 19(3): 467–478. Allows 3D implant exporting as Computer-Aided Design (CAD) file format for 3D printing and in-depth pre-surgical assessment;