Jae-Won Lee1, Se-Ho Lim1, Moon-Key Kim2, Sang-Hoon Kang3. 1. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, National Health Insurance Service Ilsan Hospital, Goyang, Republic of Korea. 2. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, National Health Insurance Service Ilsan Hospital, Goyang, Republic of Korea; Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 3. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, National Health Insurance Service Ilsan Hospital, Goyang, Republic of Korea; Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University, Seoul, Republic of Korea. Electronic address: omfs1ksh@daum.net.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We examined the precision of a computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing-engineered, manufactured, facebow-based surgical guide template (facebow wafer) by comparing it with a bite splint-type orthognathic computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing-engineered surgical guide template (bite wafer). STUDY DESIGN: We used 24 rapid prototyping (RP) models of the craniofacial skeleton with maxillary deformities. Twelve RP models each were used for the facebow wafer group and the bite wafer group (experimental group). Experimental maxillary orthognathic surgery was performed on the RP models of both groups. Errors were evaluated through comparisons with surgical simulations. We measured the minimum distances from 3 planes of reference to determine the vertical, lateral, and anteroposterior errors at specific measurement points. The measured errors were compared between experimental groups using a t test. RESULTS: There were significant intergroup differences in the lateral error when we compared the absolute values of the 3-D linear distance, as well as vertical, lateral, and anteroposterior errors between experimental groups. The bite wafer method exhibited little lateral error overall and little error in the anterior tooth region. The facebow wafer method exhibited very little vertical error in the posterior molar region. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical precision of the facebow wafer method did not significantly exceed that of the bite wafer method.
OBJECTIVE: We examined the precision of a computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing-engineered, manufactured, facebow-based surgical guide template (facebow wafer) by comparing it with a bite splint-type orthognathic computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing-engineered surgical guide template (bite wafer). STUDY DESIGN: We used 24 rapid prototyping (RP) models of the craniofacial skeleton with maxillary deformities. Twelve RP models each were used for the facebow wafer group and the bite wafer group (experimental group). Experimental maxillary orthognathic surgery was performed on the RP models of both groups. Errors were evaluated through comparisons with surgical simulations. We measured the minimum distances from 3 planes of reference to determine the vertical, lateral, and anteroposterior errors at specific measurement points. The measured errors were compared between experimental groups using a t test. RESULTS: There were significant intergroup differences in the lateral error when we compared the absolute values of the 3-D linear distance, as well as vertical, lateral, and anteroposterior errors between experimental groups. The bite wafer method exhibited little lateral error overall and little error in the anterior tooth region. The facebow wafer method exhibited very little vertical error in the posterior molar region. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical precision of the facebow wafer method did not significantly exceed that of the bite wafer method.