Peng Yuan1, Huaming Mai1, Jianfu Li1, Dennis Chun-Yu Ho1, Yingying Lai1, Siting Liu1, Daeseung Kim1, Zixiang Xiong2, David M Alfi1,3, John F Teichgraeber4, Jaime Gateno1,3,4,5, James J Xia6,7,8,9. 1. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Houston Methodist Research Institute, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. 2. Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, 77843, USA. 3. Department of Surgery (Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery), Weill Medical College, Cornell University, New York, NY, 10065, USA. 4. Division of Pediatric Plastic Surgery, Department of Pediatric Surgery, The University of Texas Houston Health Science Center, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. 5. Department of Orthodontics, The University of Texas Houston Health Science Center, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. 6. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Houston Methodist Research Institute, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. jxia@HoustonMethodist.org. 7. Department of Surgery (Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery), Weill Medical College, Cornell University, New York, NY, 10065, USA. jxia@HoustonMethodist.org. 8. Division of Pediatric Plastic Surgery, Department of Pediatric Surgery, The University of Texas Houston Health Science Center, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. jxia@HoustonMethodist.org. 9. Department of Orthodontics, The University of Texas Houston Health Science Center, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. jxia@HoustonMethodist.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE: There are many proven problems associated with traditional surgical planning methods for orthognathic surgery. To address these problems, we developed a computer-aided surgical simulation (CASS) system, the AnatomicAligner, to plan orthognathic surgery following our streamlined clinical protocol. METHODS: The system includes six modules: image segmentation and three-dimensional (3D) reconstruction, registration and reorientation of models to neutral head posture, 3D cephalometric analysis, virtual osteotomy, surgical simulation, and surgical splint generation. The accuracy of the system was validated in a stepwise fashion: first to evaluate the accuracy of AnatomicAligner using 30 sets of patient data, then to evaluate the fitting of splints generated by AnatomicAligner using 10 sets of patient data. The industrial gold standard system, Mimics, was used as the reference. RESULT: When comparing the results of segmentation, virtual osteotomy and transformation achieved with AnatomicAligner to the ones achieved with Mimics, the absolute deviation between the two systems was clinically insignificant. The average surface deviation between the two models after 3D model reconstruction in AnatomicAligner and Mimics was 0.3 mm with a standard deviation (SD) of 0.03 mm. All the average surface deviations between the two models after virtual osteotomy and transformations were smaller than 0.01 mm with a SD of 0.01 mm. In addition, the fitting of splints generated by AnatomicAligner was at least as good as the ones generated by Mimics. CONCLUSION: We successfully developed a CASS system, the AnatomicAligner, for planning orthognathic surgery following the streamlined planning protocol. The system has been proven accurate. AnatomicAligner will soon be available freely to the boarder clinical and research communities.
PURPOSE: There are many proven problems associated with traditional surgical planning methods for orthognathic surgery. To address these problems, we developed a computer-aided surgical simulation (CASS) system, the AnatomicAligner, to plan orthognathic surgery following our streamlined clinical protocol. METHODS: The system includes six modules: image segmentation and three-dimensional (3D) reconstruction, registration and reorientation of models to neutral head posture, 3D cephalometric analysis, virtual osteotomy, surgical simulation, and surgical splint generation. The accuracy of the system was validated in a stepwise fashion: first to evaluate the accuracy of AnatomicAligner using 30 sets of patient data, then to evaluate the fitting of splints generated by AnatomicAligner using 10 sets of patient data. The industrial gold standard system, Mimics, was used as the reference. RESULT: When comparing the results of segmentation, virtual osteotomy and transformation achieved with AnatomicAligner to the ones achieved with Mimics, the absolute deviation between the two systems was clinically insignificant. The average surface deviation between the two models after 3D model reconstruction in AnatomicAligner and Mimics was 0.3 mm with a standard deviation (SD) of 0.03 mm. All the average surface deviations between the two models after virtual osteotomy and transformations were smaller than 0.01 mm with a SD of 0.01 mm. In addition, the fitting of splints generated by AnatomicAligner was at least as good as the ones generated by Mimics. CONCLUSION: We successfully developed a CASS system, the AnatomicAligner, for planning orthognathic surgery following the streamlined planning protocol. The system has been proven accurate. AnatomicAligner will soon be available freely to the boarder clinical and research communities.
Authors: Jaime Gateno; James Xia; John F Teichgraeber; Andrew Rosen; Bruce Hultgren; Tim Vadnais Journal: J Oral Maxillofac Surg Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 1.895
Authors: T J J Maal; J M Plooij; F A Rangel; W Mollemans; F A C Schutyser; S J Bergé Journal: Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg Date: 2008-06-09 Impact factor: 2.789
Authors: N Nadjmi; W Mollemans; A Daelemans; G Van Hemelen; F Schutyser; S Bergé Journal: Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg Date: 2010-03-11 Impact factor: 2.789
Authors: Sonny Wong; Han Deng; Jaime Gateno; Peng Yuan; Fred A Garrett; Randy K Ellis; Jeryl D English; Helder B Jacob; Daeseung Kim; James J Xia Journal: J Oral Maxillofac Surg Date: 2020-01-07 Impact factor: 1.895