In orthognathic surgery, patient-specific osteosynthesis implants (PSIs) represent a novel approach for the reproduction of the virtual surgical planning on the patient. The aim of this study is to analyse the quality of maxillo-mandibular positioning using a hybrid mandible-first mandibular-PSI-guided procedure on twenty-two patients while the upper maxilla was fixed using manually bent stock titanium miniplates. The virtual surgical plan was used to design PSIs and positioning guides, which were then 3D printed using biocompatible materials. A Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) scan was performed one month after surgery and postoperative facial skeletal models were segmented for comparison against the surgical plan. A three-dimensional cephalometric analysis was carried out on both planned and obtained anatomies. A Spearman correlation matrix was computed on the calculated discrepancies in order to achieve a more comprehensive description of maxillo-mandibular displacement. Intraoperatively, all PSIs were successfully applied. The procedure was found to be accurate in planned maxillo-mandibular positioning reproduction, while maintaining a degree of flexibility to allow for aesthetics-based verticality correction in a pitch range between −5.31 and +1.79 mm. Such a correction did not significantly affect the achievement of planned frontal symmetry.

In orthognathic surgery, the use of patient-specific osteosynthesis devices is a novel approach used to transfer the virtual surgical plan to the patient. The aim of this study is to analyse the quality of mandibular anatomy reproduction using a mandible-first mandibular-PSI guided procedure on 22 patients. Three different positioning guide designs were compared in terms of osteosynthesis plate positioning and mandibular anatomical outcome. PSIs and positioning guides were designed according to virtual surgical plan and 3D printed using biocompatible materials. A CBCT scan was performed 1 month after surgery and postoperative mandibular models were segmented for comparison against the surgical plan. A precision comparison was carried out among the three groups. Correlations between obtained rami and plates discrepancies and between planned rami displacements and obtained rami discrepancies were calculated. Intraoperatively, all PSIs were successfully applied. The procedure was found to be accurate in planned mandibular anatomy reproduction. Different guide designs did not differ in mandibular outcome precision. Plate positional discrepancies influenced the corresponding ramus position, mainly in roll angle and vertical translation. Ramus planned displacement was found to be a further potential source of inaccuracy, possibly due to osteosynthesis surface interference.

Background: Augmented reality (AR) allows the overlapping and integration of virtual information with the real environment. The camera of the AR device reads the object and integrates the virtual data. It has been widely applied to medical and surgical sciences in recent years and has the potential to enhance intraoperative navigation. Materials and methods: In this study, the authors aim to assess the accuracy of AR guidance when using the commercial HoloLens 2 head-mounted display (HMD) in pediatric craniofacial surgery. The Authors selected fronto-orbital remodeling (FOR) as the procedure to test (specifically, frontal osteotomy and nasal osteotomy were considered). Six people (three surgeons and three engineers) were recruited to perform the osteotomies on a 3D printed stereolithographic model under the guidance of AR. By means of calibrated CAD/CAM cutting guides with different grooves, the authors measured the accuracy of the osteotomies that were performed. We tested accuracy levels of ±1.5 mm, ±1 mm, and ±0.5 mm. Results: With the HoloLens 2, the majority of the individuals involved were able to successfully trace the trajectories of the frontal and nasal osteotomies with an accuracy level of ±1.5 mm. Additionally, 80% were able to achieve an accuracy level of ±1 mm when performing a nasal osteotomy, and 52% were able to achieve an accuracy level of ±1 mm when performing a frontal osteotomy, while 61% were able to achieve an accuracy level of ±0.5 mm when performing a nasal osteotomy, and 33% were able to achieve an accuracy level of ±0.5 mm when performing a frontal osteotomy. Conclusions: despite this being an in vitro study, the authors reported encouraging results for the prospective use of AR on actual patients.

Objectives: The aim of this study is to introduce a novel 3D cephalometric analysis (3DCA) and to validate its use in evaluating the reproducibility of virtual orthodontic-surgical planning (VOSP) in surgery-first approach (SF) comparing VOSP and post-operative outcome (PostOp). Methods: The cohort of nineteen patients underwent bimaxillary orthognathic surgery following the VOSP designed in SimPlant O&O software by processing cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans and intraoral digital scanning of the dental arches. Said records were re-acquired once the post-operative orthodontic treatment was completed. The 3DCA was performed by three expert operators on VOSP and PostOp 3D models. Descriptive statistics of 3DCA measures were evaluated, and outcomes were compared via Wilcoxon test. Results: In the comparison between cephalometric outcomes against planned ones, the following values showed significant differences: Wits Index, which suggests a tendency towards skeletal class III in PostOp (p = 0.033); decreased PFH/AFH ratio (p = 0.010); decreased upper incisors inclination (p < 0.001); and increased OVJ (p = 0.001). However not significant (p = 0.053), a tendency towards maxillary retroposition was found in PostOp (A/McNamara VOSP: 5.05 ± 2.64 mm; PostOp: 4.1 ± 2.6 mm). On average, however, when McNamara’s plane was considered as reference, a tendency to biprotrusion was found. Upper incisal protrusion was greater in PostOp as an orthodontic compensation for residual maxillary retrusion (VOSP: 5.68 ± 2.56 mm; PostOp: 6.53 ± 2.63 mm; p = 0.084). Finally, the frontal symmetry in relation to the median sagittal plane decreased in craniocaudal direction. Limitations: A potential limit of studies making use of closest point distance analysis is represented by the complexity that surgeons and orthodontists face in applying this three-dimensional evaluation of SF accuracy/predictability to everyday clinical practice and diagnosis. Also, heterogeneity and limited sample size may impact the results of the study comparison. Conclusions: The presented 3DCA offers a valid aid in performing VOSP and analysing orthognathic surgery outcomes, especially in SF. Thanks to the cephalometric analysis, we found that surgery-first approach outcome unpredictability is mainly tied to the sagittal positioning of the maxilla and that the transverse symmetry is progressively less predictable in a craniocaudal direction.

Although the fibula free flap represents the gold standard for mandibular reconstructions, when implanted as a single barrel, this flap does not have the cross-sectional requisites to restore the native mandibular height, which is in turn required for the implant-supported dental rehabilitation of the patient. Our team has developed a design workflow that already considers the predicted dental rehabilitation, positioning the fibular free flap in the correct craniocaudal position to restore the native alveolar crest. The remaining height gap along the inferior mandibular margin is then filled by a patient-specific implant. The aim of this study is to evaluate the accuracy in transferring the planned mandibular anatomy resulting from said workflow on 10 patients by means of a new rigid body analysis method, derived from the evaluation of orthognathic surgery procedures. The analysis method has proved to be reliable and reproducible, and the results obtained show that the procedure already has satisfactory accuracy (4.6° mean total angular discrepancy, 2.7 mm total translational discrepancy, 1.04 mm mean neo-alveolar crest surface deviation), while also pointing out possible improvements to the virtual planning workflow.