ABSTRACT
Orthognathic surgery has always been a classical focus of maxillofacial surgery. Since more than 100 years, various surgical techniques for mandibular repositioning have been developed and clinically tested. Since the establishment of plate and screw osteosynthesis, orthognathic surgery became more stable and safe. Nowadays, different surgical methods for mobilising the mandible are existing. This international multicenter analysis (n = 51 hospitals) is providing first evidence based data for the current use of different surgical methods. The dominating techniques were Obwegeser/dal Pont (61%) followed by Hunsuck/Epker (37%) and Perthes/Schlössmann (29%). The main osteosynthesis materials were plates (82%), bicortical screws (23.5%), or a combination of both (5.9%). 47% of all centers reported to use several surgical methods at the same time, depending on the anatomical problem and the surgeon's preference. This shows that different surgical methods seem to work as comparable, safe, and reliable procedures in everydays clinical practise. On this basis, further prospective studies could evaluate possible advantages for our patients.
Subject(s)
Mandible/surgery , Orthognathic Surgical Procedures/statistics & numerical data , Bone Plates/statistics & numerical data , Bone Screws/statistics & numerical data , HumansABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Throughout the history of computing, shortening the gap between the physical and digital world behind the screen has always been strived for. Recent advances in three-dimensional (3D) virtual surgery programs have reduced this gap significantly. Although 3D assisted surgery is now widely available for orthognathic surgery, one might still argue whether a 3D virtual planning approach is a better alternative to a conventional two-dimensional (2D) planning technique. The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of a traditional 2D technique and a 3D computer-aided prediction method. METHODS: A double blind randomised prospective study was performed to compare the prediction accuracy of a traditional 2D planning technique versus a 3D computer-aided planning approach. The accuracy of the hard and soft tissue profile predictions using both planning methods was investigated. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant difference between 2D and 3D soft tissue planning (p < 0.05). The statistically significant difference found between 2D and 3D planning and the actual soft tissue outcome was not confirmed by a statistically significant difference between methods. CONCLUSIONS: The 3D planning approach provides more accurate soft tissue planning. However, the 2D orthognathic planning is comparable to 3D planning when it comes to hard tissue planning. This study provides relevant results for choosing between 3D and 2D planning in clinical practice.
