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
. 2025 Nov 26.
doi: 10.1186/s13005-025-00569-8. Online ahead of print.

Comparison of the accuracy between guided and freehand placement of periorbital implants-a cadaveric split-face study

Britta M Lohn  1 , Stefan Raith  2 , Philipp Winnand  2 , Mark Ooms  2 , Tino Rickert  2 , Nina Wagenknecht  2 , Frank Hölzle  2 , Ali Modabber  2
Affiliations
Free article

Comparison of the accuracy between guided and freehand placement of periorbital implants-a cadaveric split-face study

Britta M Lohn et al. Head Face Med. .
Free article

Abstract

Background: Orbital exenteration (exenteratio orbitae) is a disfiguring procedure performed with tumor resection. Rapid realization of an implant-retained craniofacial prosthesis with a secure fit for an active life is essential to restore quality of life. Osseointegrated implants are commonly used for maxillofacial rehabilitation. The precise positioning of these implants is more difficult in cases of reduced bone availability, but it enables anaplastologists to achieve an unobtrusive restoration.

Methods: After computed tomography (CT) scans of 13 cadaver heads, 104 craniomaxillofacial (CMF) implants were digitally planned. Using a split-face study design, one periorbital side was treated with customized surgical guides and one side was operated freehand. The digital evaluation of position, axis, and insertion depth compared to the digital planning was conducted for 78 periorbital implants using digital evaluation of a postoperative CT scan to measure the linear and angular deviation from preoperative planning.

Results: The linear deviation in 3D (p = 0.0105), drilling depth (p = 0.0013), and angular deviation (p = 0.0004) were significantly greater in the freehand group than in the guided computer-assisted implant surgery (CAIS) group.

Conclusion: Digital planning enables the available bone support to be preoperatively estimated. CAIS with surgical guides offers significantly more accurate results for CMF implant placement than a freehand transfer of digital planning. Guided CAIS requires a larger surgical approach and therefore fails to achieve the goal of a minimally invasive technique.

Keywords: Anaplastology; CMF implants; Craniofacial prosthesis; Epithesis; Extraoral implantology; Surgical template.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declarations. Ethics approval and consent to participate: Ethical approval was granted by the Ethics Committee of the Medical Faculty of RWTH Aachen University (EK219/16). All procedures involving human cadavers were performed in accordance with institutional and national guidelines. The handling, storage, and use of cadaver samples were carried out in accordance with ISO 12891 standards, ensuring appropriate safety measures, proper documentation, and respectful treatment of donors. All body donors bequeathed their bodies to science during their lifetime. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. The authors wish to sincerely thank those who donated their bodies to science so that anatomical research could be performed. Results from such research can potentially improve patient care and increase mankind’s overall knowledge. Therefore, these donors and their families deserve our highest gratitude. Consent for publication: Not applicable. Competing interest: The authors declare no competing interests.

References

    1. Abduo J, Lau D. Accuracy of static computer-assisted implant placement in anterior and posterior sites by clinicians new to implant dentistry: in vitro comparison of fully guided, pilot-guided, and freehand protocols. Int J Implant Dent. 2020;6:10.
    1. Alfano SG, Robinson RF, Webber CM, Erickson KK. Fabrication of a craniofacial implant surgical and treatment planning guide. J Prosthet Dent. 2005;93(1):91–4.
    1. Ariani N, Visser A, van Oort RP, Kusdhany L, Rahardjo TBW, Krom BP, et al. Current state of craniofacial prosthetic rehabilitation. Int J Prosthodont. 2013;26:57–67.
    1. Arısan V, Bölükbaşı N, Öksüz L. Computer-assisted flapless implant placement reduces the incidence of surgery-related bacteremia. Clin Oral Invest. 2013;17:1985–93.
    1. Bai S, Bi Y, Dong Y, Feng Z, Zhao Y. Computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing implant guide used in flapless surgery for auricular prosthesis. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012;70:1338–41.

LinkOut - more resources