## 1 Introduction  
Treating maxillofacial anomalies, consequent to neoplasms, trauma, or congenital conditions in the craniofacial region, presents a challenge due to the precise geometric demands and the diversity of affected tissue types, including bone, cartilage, muscle, and skin [1]. Disfigurement resulting from the loss or underdevelopment of a part of the face can lead to considerable physical, psychological, and emotional distress [2]. To alleviate patient stress and discomfort, it is crucial to reconstruct the maxillofacial geometry and enhance patient's appearance. This goal may be accomplished through surgical reconstruction, regenerative medicine, and prosthetic rehabilitation techniques. Depending on the particular defect, these approaches may be applied separately or in conjunction with one another [1,3]. Reconstructive surgery is often regarded as the premier option, particularly for congenital or developmental abnormalities. Yet, this method heavily relies on the skill of the surgeons, making the final aesthetic result challenging to foresee. Additionally, as [PERSON] and [PERSON] have noted, surgical reconstruction can necessitate between three to fifteen surgical interventions over a span of 4 to 49 months, marking a considerably extended duration [4]. Several pivotal aspects that add to the complexity of surgical procedures include deficits in soft or bone tissue, the mobility of the affected tissue, the distinctiveness of each defect, and the risk of infection. Delaying reconstructive surgery may be essential to facilitate ongoing checks for malignancy. Moreover, in some cases, to facilitate the social integration of patients between surgeries, temporary prostheses are required. A maxillofacial prosthesis also supports patient's physiological well-being and enhances their quality of life. Traditional handcrafted maxillofacial prostheses face numerous challenges, including high production costs, lengthy manufacturing times, and patient discomfort during the impression-taking phase. These conventional methods are labor-intensive, requiring the expertise of skilled artisans, and result in prostheses that may cost between USD 2000 to USD 7000 and necessitate approximately 14 to 15 h of labor for production [5,6]. In recent years, the introduction of advanced manufacturing techniques, such as digital impressions, computer-aided design (CAD), and computer-aided manufacturing (CAM), along with improvements in material properties, has led to significant reductions in both production time and costs [6]. Typically, the manufacturing of soft maxillofacial prostheses utilizes silicone elastomer, primarily polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS), with either room temperature vulcanizing (RTV) systems that involve crosslinking through condensation or addition polymerization using a catalyst and crosslinking agent, or high temperature vulcanizing (HTV) systems that involve crosslinking through free radical or addition polymerization [7]. In both an analog or a partially digital workflow for creating soft prostheses, also known as epitheses or ectoprostheses, the silicone is cast in a mold obtained from a wax pattern or using 3D printing technology. Facial prostheses can be colorized intrinsically, while incorporating silicone into the mold, or extrinsically, after silicone vulcanization, using special pigments for further customization. One of the key challenges in developing materials for soft tissue replacement lies in replicating the mechanical and aesthetic properties of human soft tissue, such as cartilage for ear and nose reconstruction. This requires materials with varying Shore hardness values tailored to the specific anatomical region to achieve functional and natural results. Modern additive manufacturing technologies have further advanced this field by enabling the use of materials with different hardness levels within a single prosthesis, providing a more accurate mimicry of natural tissue properties [8].