(1) Background: In orthognathic surgery, segmental Le Fort I osteotomies are a valuable method to correct maxillary deformities or transversal discrepancies. However, these procedures are technically challenging, and osteosynthesis can be prone to error. (2) Methods: In this retrospective, monocentric cohort study, patients were enrolled who underwent a virtually planned segmental maxillary osteotomy during their combined treatment. Positioning and osteosynthesis were achieved by either a 3D-printed splint and conventional miniplates or patient-specific implants (PSI). The preoperative CT data, virtual planning data, and postoperative CBCT data were segmented. The deviation of all the segments from the desired virtually planned position was measured using the analysis function of IPS CaseDesigner. (3) Results: 28 Patients in the PSI Group and 22 in the conventional groups were included. The PSI group showed significantly lower deviation from the planned position anteroposteriorly (−0.63 ± 1.62 mm vs. −1.3 ± 2.54 mm) and craniocaudally (−1.39 ± 1.59 mm vs. −2.7 ± 3.1 mm). For rotational deviations, the pitch (0.64 ± 2.59° vs. 2.91 ± 4.08°), as well as the inward rotation of the lateral segments, was positively influenced by PSI. (4). Conclusions: The presented data show that patient-specific osteosynthesis significantly reduces deviations from the preoperative plan in virtually planned cases. Transversal expansions and vertical positioning can be addressed better.

(1) Background: Novel high-performance polymers for medical 3D printing enable in-office manufacturing of fully customized brackets. Previous studies have investigated clinically relevant parameters such as manufacturing precision, torque transmission, and fracture stability. The aim of this study is to evaluate different design options of the bracket base concerning the adhesive bond between the bracket and tooth, measured as the shear bond strength (SBS) and maximum force (F_max) according to DIN 13990. (2) Methods: Three different designs for printed bracket bases were compared with a conventional metal bracket (C). The following configurations were chosen for the base design: Matching of the base to the anatomy of the tooth surface, size of the cross-sectional area corresponding to the control group (C), and a micro- (A) and macro- (B) retentive design of the base surface. In addition, a group with a micro-retentive base (D) matched to the tooth surface and an increased size was studied. The groups were analyzed for SBS, F_max, and adhesive remnant index (ARI). The Kruskal–Wallis test with a post hoc test (Dunn–Bonferroni) and Mann–Whitney U test were used for statistical analysis (significance level: p < 0.05). (3) Results: The values for SBS and F_max were highest in C (SBS: 12.0 ± 3.8 MPa; F_max: 115.7 ± 36.6 N). For the printed brackets, there were significant differences between A and B (A: SBS 8.8 ± 2.3 MPa, F_max 84.7 ± 21.8 N; B: SBS 12.0 ± 2.1 MPa, F_max 106.5 ± 20.7 N). F_max was significantly different for A and D (D: F_max 118.5 ± 22.8 N). The ARI score was highest for A and lowest for C. (4) Conclusions: This study shows that conventional brackets form a more stable bond with the tooth than the 3D-printed brackets. However, for successful clinical use, the shear bond strength of the printed brackets can be increased with a macro-retentive design and/or enlargement of the base.

(1) Background: In orthognathic surgery, segmental Le Fort I osteotomies are a valuable method to correct maxillary deformities or transversal discrepancies. However, these procedures are technically challenging, and osteosynthesis can be prone to error. (2) Methods: In this retrospective, monocentric cohort study, patients were enrolled who underwent a virtually planned segmental maxillary osteotomy during their combined treatment. Positioning and osteosynthesis were achieved by either a 3D-printed splint and conventional mini plates or Patient-Specific Implants (PSI). The preoperative CT data, virtual planning data, and postoperative CBCT data were segmented. The deviation of all segments from the desired virtually planned position was measured using the analysis function of the IPS Case Designer. (3) Results: 28 Patients in the PSI Group and 22 in the conventional groups could be included. The PSI group showed significantly lower deviation from the planned position anteroposteriorly (-0.63±1.62mm vs. -1.3±2.54mm) and craniocaudally (-1.39±1.59mm vs. -2.7±3.1mm). For rotational deviations, the Pitch (0.64±2.59° vs. 2.91±4.08°) as well as the inward rotation of the lateral segments was positively influenced by PSI. (4). Conclusions: The presented data show that patient-specific osteosynthesis significantly reduces deviations from the preoperative plan in virtually planned cases. Especially transversal expansions and vertical positioning can be addressed better.

Skeletal-anchored mesial sliders are increasingly used for molar mesialization, yet their mechanical behavior has not been compared under standardized conditions. This in vitro pilot study evaluated four slider designs (BENEfit^® Beneslider [BB], TADMAN Beneslider [TB], IZE Slider [IO; OrthoLIZE GmbH], Slider on Minipin [SO; OrthoLIZE GmbH]), each combined with elastic chains (-C) or NiTi springs (-S), to characterize force loss, mesial movement, and associated mechanical side effects using an experimental biomechanical measurement system. Using repeated measurements on one specimen with 1 N of applied force, three-dimensional tooth movements were recorded across 200 simulation steps per run. The sliders showed design-dependent mechanical patterns: IO sliders produced the smallest sagittal movements (IO-C: −0.84 mm [0.05], IO-S: −0.79 mm [0.02]) and the highest force loss (IO-C: 88.1% [2.1], IO-S: 89.8% [0.3]), whereas BB-S and TB-S generated larger mesialization distances (BB-S: −3.55 mm [0.53], TB-S: −3.46 mm [0.08]) with lower force loss (BB-S: 42.8% [9.2], TB-S: 21.1% [2.9]). Translational deviations remained small, while rotational effects were more pronounced. These findings represent mechanical tendencies of the tested configurations under idealized conditions and do not account for biological variability, periodontal compliance, or patient-specific factors. As such, the results cannot be generalized to clinical performance but provide preliminary reference data. Expanded investigations using multiple specimens, biological modeling, or finite element analysis will be necessary to determine how these mechanical patterns translate into clinical tooth movement.