Top

Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery

04-05-2024 | Computed Tomography | ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Objective Evaluation of Accuracy of Stereolithographic Models in Reconstruction of Mandibular Defects

Authors: N. Niveditha, Sanjiv C. Nair, Balasubramanya Kumar, Anjan Kumar Shah

Published in: Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery

Abstract

Background

Functional reconstruction of oromandibular defects has long been a surgical challenge. In recent years, computer-aided design (CAD)/computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) techniques have led to better evaluation of outcomes in terms of morphology and function. Previous studies comparing CAD/CAM to conventional methods have indicated significant improvement of technical accuracy with digital guidance, but final outcomes often still contain deviances of several millimeters. The purpose of this study was to morphometrically compare preplanned scenario with the stereolithographic model.

Materials and Methods

A prospective study composed of 15 patients with any pathology or defect who underwent computer-assisted mandibular reconstruction with vascularized free fibula flap were evaluated. Morphometric assessment from mental foramen to mental foramen, gonion to gonion, gonion-gnathion and vertical length of the ramus on the 3D model measured using digital caliper was compared with that of 3D CT data obtained using Osteo 3D proprietary software using the independent t test.

Results

Descriptive statistics with frequency, percentage, mean and standard deviation was taken. The statistical analysis indicate that the comparisons of measuring the reference points on the 3D CT and 3D models do not have significant differences where p < 0.05. No significant interobserver differences were found (ICC = 0.99).

Conclusion

Stereolithographic models enable simulation of the resective and reconstructive phases, prebending of reconstruction plates and fabrication of surgical guides and it also confers reproducible precision and accuracy for free fibular mandibular reconstruction.

Available only for authorised users

Savitri IT, Badri C, Sulistyani LD (2017) The accuracy of three-dimensional fused deposition modeling (FDM) compared with three-dimensional CT-Scans on the measurement of the mandibular ramus vertical length, gonion–menton length, and gonial angle. J Phys Conf Series 884(1):012050CrossRef

Hidalgo DA, Pusic AL (2002) Free-flap mandibular reconstruction: a 10-year follow-up study. Plast Reconstruc Surg 110(2):438–449. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-200208000-00010CrossRef

Sinn DP, Cillo JE Jr, Miles BA (2006) Stereolithography for craniofacial surgery. J Craniofac Surg 17(5):869–875CrossRefPubMed

Silva DN, Gerhardt M, de Oliveira E, Meurer MI, Meurer JV, da Silva L, Santa-Bárbara A (2008) Dimensional error in selective laser sintering and 3D-printing of models for craniomaxillary anatomy reconstruction. J Cranio Maxillofac Surg 36(8):443–449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2008.04.003CrossRef

Hundepool AC, Dumans AG, Hofer SO, Fokkens NJ, Rayat SS, van der Meij EH, Schepman KP (2008) Rehabilitation after mandibular reconstruction with fibula free-flap: clinical outcome and quality of life assessment. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 37(11):1009–1013CrossRefPubMed

Hirsch DL, Bell RB, Dierks EJ, Potter JK, Potter BE (2008) Analysis of microvascular free flaps for reconstruction of advanced mandibular osteoradionecrosis: a retrospective cohort study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 66(12):2545–2556CrossRefPubMed

Thankappan K, Trivedi NP, Subash P, Pullara SK, Peter S, Kuriakose MA, Iyer S (2008) Three-dimensional computed tomography-based contouring of a free fibula bone graft for mandibular reconstruction. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 66(10):2185–2192CrossRefPubMed

Dérand P, Hirsch JM (2009) Virtual bending of mandibular reconstruction plates using a computer-aided design. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 67(8):1640–1643CrossRefPubMed

Cohen A, Laviv A, Berman P, Nashef R, Abu-Tair J (2009) Mandibular reconstruction using stereolithographic 3-dimensional printing modeling technology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 108(5):661–666CrossRefPubMed

10.

Mehra P, Miner J, D’Innocenzo R, Nadershah M (2011) Use of 3-d stereolithographic models in oral and maxillofacial surgery. J Maxillofac Oral Surg 10(1):6–13CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

11.

Hou JS, Chen M, Pan CB, Wang M, Wang JG, Zhang B, Tao Q, Wang C, Huang HZ (2012) Application of CAD/CAM-assisted technique with surgical treatment in reconstruction of the mandible. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 40(8):e432–e437CrossRefPubMed

12.

Metzler P, Geiger EJ, Alcon A, Ma X, Steinbacher DM (2014) Three-dimensional virtual surgery accuracy for free fibula mandibular reconstruction: planned versus actual results. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 72(12):2601–2612CrossRefPubMed

13.

Weijs WL, Coppen C, Schreurs R, Vreeken RD, Verhulst AC, Merkx MA, Bergé SJ, Maal TJ (2016) Accuracy of virtually 3D planned resection templates in mandibular reconstruction. J CranioMaxillofac Surg 44(11):1828–1832CrossRefPubMed

14.

Awad ME, Altman A, Elrefai R, Shipman P, Looney S, Elsalanty M (2019) The use of vascularized fibula flap in mandibular reconstruction; a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of the observational studies. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 47(4):629–641CrossRefPubMed

15.

Goormans F, Sun Y, Bila M, Schoenaers J, Geusens J, Lübbers HT, Coucke W, Politis C (2019) Accuracy of computer-assisted mandibular reconstructions with free fibula flap: results of a single-center series. Oral Oncol 1(97):69–75CrossRef

16.

Pucci R, Weyh A, Smotherman C, Valentini V, Bunnell A, Fernandes R (2020) Accuracy of virtual planned surgery versus conventional free-hand surgery for reconstruction of the mandible with osteocutaneous free flaps. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 49(9):1153–1161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2020.02.018CrossRefPubMed

17.

Huotilainen E, Jaanimets R, Valášek J, Marcián P, Salmi M, Tuomi J, Wolff J (2014) Inaccuracies in additive manufactured medical skull models caused by the DICOM to STL conversion process. J Craniomaxillofacl Surg 42(5):e259–e265CrossRef

18.

Moubayed SP, L’Heureux-Lebeau B, Christopoulos A, Sampalis JS, Letourneau-Guillon L, Bissada E, Guertin L, Harris PG, Danino AM, Ayad T (2014) Osteocutaneous free flaps for mandibular reconstruction: systematic review of their frequency of use and a preliminary quality of life comparison. J Laryngol Otol 128(12):1034–1043CrossRefPubMed

19.

Ren W, Gao L, Li S, Chen C, Li F, Wang Q, Zhi Y, Song J, Dou Z, Xue L, Zhi K (2018) Virtual planning and 3D printing modeling for mandibular reconstruction with fibula free flap. Medicina Oral Patología Oral y Cirugia Bucal. https://doi.org/10.4317/medoral.22295CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

20.

Tang N, Ahmadi I, Ramakrishnan A (2019) Virtual surgical planning in fibula free flap head and neck reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 72(9):1465–1477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2019.06.013CrossRefPubMed

21.

Chapuis J, Rudolph T, Borgesson B, De Momi E, Pappas IP, Hallermann W, Caversaccio M (2004) 3D surgical planning and navigation for CMF surgery. Medical imaging 2004: visualization. Image Guided Proced Disp 5367:403–410

22.

Liu XJ, Gui L, Mao C, Peng X, Yu GY (2009) Applying computer techniques in maxillofacial reconstruction using a fibula flap: a messenger and an evaluation method. J Craniofac Surg 20(2):372–377CrossRefPubMed

23.

González-Garcia R, Rubio-Bueno P, Naval-Gías L, Rodríguez-Campo FJ, Escorial-Hernández V, Martos PL, Diaz-González FJ (2008) Internal distraction osteogenesis in mandibular reconstruction: clinical experience in 10 cases. Plast Reconstr Surg 121(2):563–575CrossRefPubMed

24.

Bartaire E, Mouawad F, Mallet Y, Milet P, El Bedoui S, Van Ton J, Chevalier D, Lefebvre JL (2012) Morphologic assessment of mandibular reconstruction by free fibula flap and donor-site functional impairment in a series of 23 patients. Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis 129(5):230–237CrossRefPubMed

25.

Foley BD, Thayer WP, Honeybrook A, McKenna S, Press S (2013) Mandibular reconstruction using computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing: an analysis of surgical results. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 71(2):e111–e119CrossRefPubMed

26.

Efanov JI, Roy AA, Huang KN, Borsuk DE (2018) Virtual surgical planning: the pearls and pitfalls. Plast Reconstruct Surg Global Open 6(1):e1443CrossRef

27.

Petrovic I, Panchal H, De Souza Franca PD, Hernandez M, McCarthy CC, Shah JP (2019) A systematic review of validated tools assessing functional and aesthetic outcomes following fibula free flap reconstruction of the mandible. Head Neck 41(1):248–255CrossRefPubMed

28.

Powcharoen W, Yang WF, Yan Li K, Zhu W, Su YX (2019) Computer-assisted versus conventional freehand mandibular reconstruction with fibula free flap: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg 144(6):1417–1428CrossRefPubMed

29.

Bernstein JM, Daly MJ, Chan H, Qiu J, Goldstein D, Muhanna N, de Almeida JR, Irish JC (2017) Accuracy and reproducibility of virtual cutting guides and 3D-navigation for osteotomies of the mandible and maxilla. PLoS ONE 12(3):e0173111CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Title: Objective Evaluation of Accuracy of Stereolithographic Models in Reconstruction of Mandibular Defects
Authors: N. Niveditha
Sanjiv C. Nair
Balasubramanya Kumar
Anjan Kumar Shah
Publication date: 04-05-2024
Publisher: Springer India
Keywords: Computed Tomography
Computed Tomography
Computer Aided Manufacturing
Computer Aided Design
Published in: Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery
Print ISSN: 0972-8279
Electronic ISSN: 0974-942X
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-024-02178-5

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Objective Evaluation of Accuracy of Stereolithographic Models in Reconstruction of Mandibular Defects

Abstract

Background

Materials and Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Materials and Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content