## 1 Introduction  
Facial injuries can significantly impact physical and psychological well-being of the patient. Effective, individualized treatment is essential to restore appearance and function and prevent disfigurement, stigma, and lowered self-esteem and social functioning [1]. One of the most important challenges facing maxillofacial surgeons is the reconstruction of the orbital region. The orbital region is a complex anatomical structure that contains vital organs, such as the eye and its associated muscles, nerves and vessels [2]. Orbital trauma can result in functional and aesthetic impairments that affect the quality of life of patients. Therefore, orbital reconstruction aims to restore the normal anatomy and physiology of the orbit by using various techniques and materials [3]. Orbital reconstruction can be performed using conventional methods or computer-assisted methods. Conventional methods rely on clinical examination, radiographic imaging, and surgical experience to guide the placement of orbital implants. However, these methods have limitations such as poor accuracy, high variability, and difficulty in assessing complex defects [4]. Computer-assisted methods use advanced technologies such as virtual surgical planning (VSP) [5], intraoperative imaging (IOI) [6], intraoperative navigation (ION) [7], and mixed reality (MR) to improve the predictability and reliability of orbital reconstruction [8]. Computer-assisted methods have shown promising results in improving the accuracy, precision, efficiency, and safety of orbital reconstruction compared to conventional methods. However, these methods also have challenges such as high costs, technical difficulties, learning curves, and ethical issues that must be addressed before they can be widely adopted in clinical practice [9; 10]. In recent years, new techniques have emerged to overcome these drawbacks and improve the outcomes of orbital reconstruction. One of these techniques is 3D printing technology, which allows for the customized fabrication of implants based on patient-specific anatomy and defect size [11]. 3D printing technology can create complex and precise shapes that match the contour of the orbital wall and avoid gaps or protrusions that may compromise the aesthetic and functional results. Moreover, 3D printing technology can use biodegradable or bioactive materials that can integrate with the surrounding bone tissue and stimulate bone regeneration. Several studies have reported successful applications of 3D-printed implants for orbital reconstruction in various clinical scenarios, demonstrating their feasibility, safety, and efficacy [12; 13]. Patient-specific implant (PSI) is a personalized approach to reconstructive and esthetic surgery that aims to restore the normal function and appearance of damaged or missing body parts [14]. PSI is especially useful for complex anatomical structures, such as the skull, where conventional implants may not fit well or match the patient's expectations. PSI involves using computer-aided design (CAD) and computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) techniques to create customized implants based on the patient's preoperative imaging data [14]. The implants can be made of various biocompatible materials, such as titanium, polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) [15], polyether ether ketone (PEEK) [16], or ceramic [17]. PSI offers several advantages over standard implants, such as improved accuracy, reduced intraoperative time, better cosmetic outcomes, and lower risk of infection or complications. Furthermore, PSI fabrication not only improves the aesthetic outcome for patients with facial injuries but also enhances their health-related quality of life (HRQoL) [18]. HRQoL is a multidimensional concept that reflects how patients perceive their physical, mental, and social well-being in relation to their health condition.