Literature DB >> 31246828

Conformity of the Actual to the Planned Result in Orthognathic Surgery.

Alex Wilson1, Kyle Gabrick1, Robin Wu1, Sarika Madari1, Rajendra Sawh-Martinez1, Derek Steinbacher1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Virtual surgical planning has facilitated preoperative planning, splint accuracy, and intraoperative efficiency in orthognathic surgery. The translation of the virtual surgical plan to the actual result has not been adequately examined. The authors examined the conformity of the virtual surgical plan to the postoperative result. They hypothesize that the greatest conformity exists in the anteroposterior dimensions.
METHODS: The authors examined patients who underwent Le Fort I maxillary advancement, bilateral sagittal split osteotomy, and genioplasty. The preoperative virtual surgical planning file and postoperative cone beam computed tomographic scan were registered in Mimics using unchanged landmarks. The conformity to the virtual surgical plan was quantified using linear and angular measurements between bone surface landmarks. Results were compared using t tests, with p < 0.05 considered statistically significant
RESULTS: : One hundred patients who underwent Le Fort I maxillary advancement, bilateral sagittal split osteotomy, and genioplasty were included. Three-dimensional analysis showed significant differences between the plan and outcome for the following landmarks: A point (y, p = 0.04; z, p = 0.04), B point (y, p = 0.02; z, p = 0.02), pogonion (y, p = 0.04), menton (x, p = 0.02; y, p = 0.01; z, p = 0.03), and anterior nasal spine (x, p = 0.04; y, p = 0.04; z, p = 0.01). Angular measurements sella-nasion-A point, sella-nasion-B point, and A point-nasion-B point were not statistically different.
CONCLUSIONS: There is a high degree of conformity comparing the orthognathic virtual surgical plan to the actual postoperative result. However, some incongruency is seen vertically (maxilla) and sagittally (mandible, chin). Departures of the actual position compared with the plan could be the result of condylar position changes, osteotomy locations, aesthetic intraoperative decisions, and/or play in the system.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31246828     DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000005744

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg        ISSN: 0032-1052            Impact factor:   4.730


  4 in total

1.  Orthognathic Surgery to Improve Facial Profile: Assessment, 3-Dimensional Planning, and Technique.

Authors:  Kitae E Park; Seija Maniskas; Omar Allam; Navid Pourtaheri; Derek M Steinbacher
Journal:  Aesthet Surg J Open Forum       Date:  2020-11-19

2.  Current trends in orthognathic surgery.

Authors:  Hyung Joon Seo; Youn-Kyung Choi
Journal:  Arch Craniofac Surg       Date:  2021-12-20

3.  Segmental Cleft-orthognathic Surgery to Achieve Facial Balance, Fistula Closure, and Arch Unification.

Authors:  Yassmin Parsaei; Seija Maniskas; Alvaro Reategui; Joseph Lopez; Derek Steinbacher
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2022-01-21

4.  Randomized Clinical Trial of the Accuracy of Patient-Specific Implants versus CAD/CAM Splints in Orthognathic Surgery.

Authors:  Biao Li; Hongpu Wei; Tengfei Jiang; Yifeng Qian; Tianjia Zhang; Hongbo Yu; Lei Zhang; Xudong Wang
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2021-11-01       Impact factor: 5.169

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.