Godoberto Guevara-Rojas1, Michael Figl2, Kurt Schicho3, Rudolf Seemann4, Hannes Traxler5, Apostolos Vacariu6, Claus-Christian Carbon7, Rolf Ewers8, Franz Watzinger9. 1. PhD Student, Facial Esthetics Engineering Group, University Hospital of Cranio-Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 2. Assistant Professor, Center of Physics and Biomedical Engineering, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. Electronic address: michael.figl@meduniwien.ac.at. 3. Associate Professor, Head of Facial Esthetics Engineering Group, University Hospital of Cranio-Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 4. Assistant Professor, Facial Esthetics Engineering Group, University Hospital of Cranio-Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 5. Assistant Professor, Center of Anatomy and Cell Biology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 6. Teaching Assistant, Center of Anatomy and Cell Biology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 7. Professor, Otto Friedrich Universität Bamberg, Bamberg, Germany. 8. Professor Emeritus, Facial Esthetics Engineering Group, University Hospital of Cranio-Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 9. Head of the Department of Cranio-Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery, St. Pölten, Austria.
Abstract
PURPOSE: In the present study, we report an innovative workflow using polyetheretherketone (PEEK) patient-specific implants for esthetic corrections in the facial region through onlay grafting. The planning includes implant design according to virtual osteotomy and generation of a subtraction volume. The implant design was refined by stepwise changing the implant geometry according to soft tissue simulations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One patient was scanned using computed tomography. PEEK implants were interactively designed and manufactured using rapid prototyping techniques. Positioning intraoperatively was assisted by computer-aided navigation. Two months after surgery, a 3-dimensional surface model of the patient's face was generated using photogrammetry. Finally, the Hausdorff distance calculation was used to quantify the overall error, encompassing the failures in soft tissue simulation and implantation. RESULTS: The implant positioning process during surgery was satisfactory. The simulated soft tissue surface and the photogrammetry scan of the patient showed a high correspondence, especially where the skin covered the implants. The mean total error (Hausdorff distance) was 0.81 ± 1.00 mm (median 0.48, interquartile range 1.11). The spatial deviation remained less than 0.7 mm for the vast majority of points. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed workflow provides a complete computer-aided design, computer-aided manufacturing, and computer-aided surgery chain for implant design, allowing for soft tissue simulation, fabrication of patient-specific implants, and image-guided surgery to position the implants. Much of the surgical complexity resulting from osteotomies of the zygoma, chin, or mandibular angle might be transferred into the planning phase of patient-specific implants.
PURPOSE: In the present study, we report an innovative workflow using polyetheretherketone (PEEK) patient-specific implants for esthetic corrections in the facial region through onlay grafting. The planning includes implant design according to virtual osteotomy and generation of a subtraction volume. The implant design was refined by stepwise changing the implant geometry according to soft tissue simulations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One patient was scanned using computed tomography. PEEK implants were interactively designed and manufactured using rapid prototyping techniques. Positioning intraoperatively was assisted by computer-aided navigation. Two months after surgery, a 3-dimensional surface model of the patient's face was generated using photogrammetry. Finally, the Hausdorff distance calculation was used to quantify the overall error, encompassing the failures in soft tissue simulation and implantation. RESULTS: The implant positioning process during surgery was satisfactory. The simulated soft tissue surface and the photogrammetry scan of the patient showed a high correspondence, especially where the skin covered the implants. The mean total error (Hausdorff distance) was 0.81 ± 1.00 mm (median 0.48, interquartile range 1.11). The spatial deviation remained less than 0.7 mm for the vast majority of points. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed workflow provides a complete computer-aided design, computer-aided manufacturing, and computer-aided surgery chain for implant design, allowing for soft tissue simulation, fabrication of patient-specific implants, and image-guided surgery to position the implants. Much of the surgical complexity resulting from osteotomies of the zygoma, chin, or mandibular angle might be transferred into the planning phase of patient-specific implants.
Authors: Marc Anton Fuessinger; Steffen Schwarz; Carl-Peter Cornelius; Marc Christian Metzger; Edward Ellis; Florian Probst; Wiebke Semper-Hogg; Mathieu Gass; Stefan Schlager Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2017-10-28 Impact factor: 2.924
Authors: G Saponaro; P Doneddu; G Gasparini; Edoardo Staderini; R Boniello; M Todaro; G D'Amato; S Pelo; A Moro Journal: Childs Nerv Syst Date: 2019-07-31 Impact factor: 1.475
Authors: Michaela R Pfau; Felipe O Beltran; Lindsay N Woodard; Lauren K Dobson; Shelby B Gasson; Andrew B Robbins; Zachary T Lawson; W Brian Saunders; Michael R Moreno; Melissa A Grunlan Journal: Acta Biomater Date: 2021-09-24 Impact factor: 8.947