## 4 Discussion  
Today there are two different ways of 3D printing available, printing in liquid light-cure resin, and printing with of filament materials. Resin-materials allow one to print out precise and stable models, however no internal structures inside the bone are printed, the models are massive through and through. We chose to print the models from filaments, because the procedure allowed us to print out internal structures (spongious bone struts) and these structures would be available for investigation. The idea to harness the tuberoperygoid region for implant anchorage is quite old. In 1972 [PERSON] suggested using the pterygoid process of the sphenoid bone for additional support of subperiosteal implants \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline  & **No Division** & **Female** & **Male** \\ \hline lateral & 0.59 1 & 0.75 1 & 0.67 1 \\ \hline medial & 0.81 1 & 0.74 1 & 0.57 2 \\ \hline rostral & 0.93 1 & 0.53 1 & 0.82 1 \\ \hline caudal & 0.60 1 & 0.85 2 & 0.54 1 \\ \hline area & 0.48 1 & 0.26 1 & 0.51 1 \\ \hline line-1 longitudinal & 0.57 1 & 0.66 1 & 0.68 1 \\ \hline line-2 transverse & 0.76 1 & 0.85 1 & 0.68 1 \\ \hline \end{tabular} 1 data not normally distributed (Shapiro–Wilk analysis \(p\) < 0.05)—result obtained using Wilcoxon test.  
2 data normally distributed (Shapiro–Wilk analysis \(p\) > 0.05)—results obtained using t-student test for dependent samples  
\end{table} 
Table 2: The values of \(p\) parameter for comparison of measurements between the right and the left side (t-student test for dependent samples, Wilcoxon test). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline  & **No Division** & **Left Side** & **Right Side** \\ \hline lateral & 0.25 1 & 0.39 1 & 0.44 1 \\ \hline medial & 0.80 1 & 0.99 2 & 0.74 1 \\ \hline rostral & 0.33 1 & 0.73 1 & 0.34 2 \\ \hline caudal & 0.18 1 & 0.29 2 & 0.41 2 \\ \hline area & 0.77 1 & 0.14 2 & 0.56 1 \\ \hline line-1 longitudinal & 0.38 1 & 0.48 1 & 0.57 1 \\ \hline line-2 transverse & 0.01 1 & 0.13 2 & 0.57 2 \\ \hline \end{tabular} 1 data not normally distributed (Shapiro–Wilk analysis \(p\) < 0.05)—result obtained using Mann–Whitney U test. 2 data normally distributed (Shapiro–Wilk analysis \(p\) > 0.05)—results obtained using t-student test for dependent samples.  
\end{table} 
Table 3: The values of \(p\) parameter for comparison of measurements between the female and male group (t-student test for independent samples, Mann–Whitney U test). of his own design [9]. In 1989 [PERSON] described the idea of [PERSON] [10; 11], in regard to implant placement in the distal part of the maxilla. The strategy for such implants is to pass through the tuberosities soft bone of upper jaw, into the pterygoid process of the spinoid bone and to anchor in the highly mineralized pterygoid plate. Another advantage of the use of tubero-pterygoid implants is that the prosthesis will have adequate posterior support, and the necessity for cantilever is eliminated [12]. This way it becomes easily possible to treat cases with abnormal jaw relationship (e.g., cases with a skeletal angle class III) with fixed prosthodontics [13]. In other words, the procedure of implantation requires penetration through the first cortical of the maxilla in the disto-medial direction with the area of the second molar as the usual start point for the osteotomy [7; 14]. If the implant is inserted through this bone junction at an angle of about 30-45 degrees, it is possible to gain more endosseus length in the dense compact bone. Considering the long distance which in most cases implants have to pass through the maxillary tuberosity or the maxillary sinus in order to reach this stable bone site, the length of pterygoid implants varies from 17-29 mm.