Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Sep 1;33(6):1816-1819.
doi: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000008462. Epub 2022 Jan 7.

Physical Versus Digital Orthognathic Surgical Planning

Affiliations

Physical Versus Digital Orthognathic Surgical Planning

Amr A Ghanem et al. J Craniofac Surg. .

Abstract

Objective: Orthognathic occlusal repositioning wafers could be constructed virtually and 3D printed. This paper assessed the accuracy of a suggested virtual model to the conventionally established Glasgow model surgery.

Design: Prospective study of the orthognathic surgery models digitally.

Participants: Seven patients who received bi-maxillary orthognathic surgeries for correction of dentofacial deformities.

Methods: The patients were clinically assessed and their cone beam cmputerized tomography (CBCT) studied. Model surgery of each patient was performed conventionally using face-bow and semi-adjustable articulator. Same plan was executed virtually using Mimics (Materialise, Leuven, Belgium) and 3Matic (Materialise, Leuven, Belgium). Conventionally fabricated acrylic wafers as well as 3D printed wafers were CBCT scanned with the casts reflecting the archived repositioning dictated by the wafers. Paired sample t test was performed to compare accuracy between intermediate and final occlusal repositioning wafers within conventional and virtual technique groups.

Results: The mean deviation in intermediate wafer group was 0.64 ± 0.33 mm; whereas the mean deviation in final wafer group was 0.53 ± 0.10 mm. Paired sample t test showed that there was no statistically significant difference in mean deviation between both groups ( P = 0.403).

Conclusions: This virtual surgical wafer achieves a similar level of accuracy to the conventional Glasgow model surgery.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors report no conflicts of interest.

References

    1. Vachiramon A, Bamber MA. Surgical wafers: a comparative study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2005;6:99–106
    1. Ayoub A. Handbook of Orthognathic Treatment: A Team Approach. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2014
    1. Barbenel JC, Paul PE, Khambay BS, et al. Errors in orthognathic surgery planning: the effect of inaccurate study model orientation. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2010;39:1103–1108
    1. Hammoudeh JA, Howell LK, Boutros S, et al. Current status of surgical planning for orthognathic surgery: traditional methods versus 3D surgical planning. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2015;3:e307
    1. Walker F, Ayoub AF, Moos KF, et al. Face bow and articulator for planning orthognathic surgery: 1 face bow. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2008;46:567–572

LinkOut - more resources