Accuracy of a computer-aided surgical simulation protocol for orthognathic surgery: a prospective multicenter study.
Academic Article
Overview
abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this prospective multicenter study was to assess the accuracy of a computer-aided surgical simulation (CASS) protocol for orthognathic surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The accuracy of the CASS protocol was assessed by comparing planned outcomes with postoperative outcomes of 65 consecutive patients enrolled from 3 centers. Computer-generated surgical splints were used for all patients. For the genioplasty, 1 center used computer-generated chin templates to reposition the chin segment only for patients with asymmetry. Standard intraoperative measurements were used without the chin templates for the remaining patients. The primary outcome measurements were the linear and angular differences for the maxilla, mandible, and chin when the planned and postoperative models were registered at the cranium. The secondary outcome measurements were the maxillary dental midline difference between the planned and postoperative positions and the linear and angular differences of the chin segment between the groups with and without the use of the template. The latter were measured when the planned and postoperative models were registered at the mandibular body. Statistical analyses were performed, and the accuracy was reported using root mean square deviation (RMSD) and the Bland-Altman method for assessing measurement agreement. RESULTS: In the primary outcome measurements, there was no statistically significant difference among the 3 centers for the maxilla and mandible. The largest RMSDs were 1.0 mm and 1.5° for the maxilla and 1.1 mm and 1.8° for the mandible. For the chin, there was a statistically significant difference between the groups with and without the use of the chin template. The chin template group showed excellent accuracy, with the largest positional RMSD of 1.0 mm and the largest orientation RMSD of 2.2°. However, larger variances were observed in the group not using the chin template. This was significant in the anteroposterior and superoinferior directions and the in pitch and yaw orientations. In the secondary outcome measurements, the RMSD of the maxillary dental midline positions was 0.9 mm. When registered at the body of the mandible, the linear and angular differences of the chin segment between the groups with and without the use of the chin template were consistent with the results found in the primary outcome measurements. CONCLUSIONS: Using this computer-aided surgical simulation protocol, the computerized plan can be transferred accurately and consistently to the patient to position the maxilla and mandible at the time of surgery. The computer-generated chin template provides greater accuracy in repositioning the chin segment than the intraoperative measurements.
