In Vivo Accuracy of a New Digital Planning System in Terms of Jaw Relation, Extent of Surgical Movements and the Hierarchy of Stability in Orthognathic Surgery

This retrospective cohort study compares the virtual planned and postoperative jaw positions in patients undergoing orthognathic surgery. Surgery was virtually planned with the Digital Münster Model Surgery system (DMMS). Primary outcome: Spatial difference in the maxillo-mandibulo relation between...

Verfasser: Stamm, Thomas
Andriyuk, Eugenia
Kleinheinz, Johannes
Jung, Susanne
Dirksen, Dieter
Middelberg, Claudius
FB/Einrichtung:FB 05: Medizinische Fakultät
Dokumenttypen:Artikel
Medientypen:Text
Erscheinungsdatum:2022
Publikation in MIAMI:17.05.2023
Datum der letzten Änderung:17.05.2023
Angaben zur Ausgabe:[Electronic ed.]
Quelle:Journal of Personalized Medicine 12 (2022) 5, 843, 1-15
Schlagwörter:orthognathic surgery; virtual planning; orthodontics
Fachgebiet (DDC):610: Medizin und Gesundheit
Lizenz:CC BY 4.0
Sprache:English
Förderung:Finanziert durch den Open-Access-Publikationsfonds der Westfälischen Wilhelms-Universität Münster (WWU Münster).
Format:PDF-Dokument
URN:urn:nbn:de:hbz:6-30039498993
Weitere Identifikatoren:DOI: 10.17879/30039500112
Permalink:https://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:hbz:6-30039498993
Verwandte Dokumente:
Onlinezugriff:10.3390_jpm12050843.pdf

This retrospective cohort study compares the virtual planned and postoperative jaw positions in patients undergoing orthognathic surgery. Surgery was virtually planned with the Digital Münster Model Surgery system (DMMS). Primary outcome: Spatial difference in the maxillo-mandibulo relation between virtual planning and postoperative result. Secondary outcome: Possible relationship between the measured differences and surgical movements as well as the postoperative stability according to Proffit. Ninety female and sixty-one male patients were included in the study. The average translation errors were 0.54 ± 0.50 mm (anteroposterior), 0.37 ± 0.33 mm (mediolateral), and 0.33 ± 0.28 mm (superoinferior). Orientation errors were 0.86 ± 0.79 degrees (yaw), 0.54 ± 0.48 degrees (roll), and 0.90 ± 0.72 degrees (pitch). The surgical procedures do not differ with respect to their error sizes. Maxilla forward and class II maxilla up with mandible forward are the most precise procedures. Most significant differences were found in the anteroposterior direction, whereby the extent of the surgical movement has no effect on the magnitude of the error. The process of planning with the DMMS followed by surgery is highly accurate and shows error values well below the clinically accepted limit of two millimeters in translation and four degrees in rotation.