Article Sidebar

pdf
Date Published: 02/12/2025
Abstract Views: 0
Views pdf: 0
DOI: https://doi.org/10.51298/vmj.v556i1.16311
Issue
Vol. 556 No. 1 (2025)
Section
Các bài báo
How to Cite
Nguyễn, P. L., & Hồ, N. T. C. (2025). COMPARISON OF ACCURACY BETWEEN VIRTUAL AND CONVENTIONAL SURGICAL PLANNING IN BIMAXILLARY ORTHOGNATHIC SURGERY. Vietnam Medical Journal, 556(1). https://doi.org/10.51298/vmj.v556i1.16311

COMPARISON OF ACCURACY BETWEEN VIRTUAL AND CONVENTIONAL SURGICAL PLANNING IN BIMAXILLARY ORTHOGNATHIC SURGERY

Phước Lợi Nguyễn, Nguyễn Thanh Chơn Hồ

Main Article Content

Abstract

Objective: To compare the accuracy between virtual surgical planning (VSP) and conventional surgical planning (CSP) in bimaxillary orthognathic surgery. Materials and Methods: A randomized controlled clinical trial was conducted on 20 patients with dentofacial deformities undergoing bimaxillary orthognathic surgery at the National Hospital of Odonto-Stomatology, Ho Chi Minh City (August 2023 – February 2025). Each patient underwent both planning methods, with the surgical splint randomly selected intraoperatively. Postoperative CT scans were superimposed on preoperative scans to measure translational (X, Y, Z) and rotational (roll, pitch, yaw) deviations of the maxilla, mandibular distal segment, and both proximal segments. Results: Both planning methods achieved high accuracy, with mean deviations below 2 mm and 2°, within clinically acceptable limits. However, the VSP group showed greater anteroposterior discrepancies in both the maxilla and mandible (p < 0.05), mainly due to differences in centric relation registration and condylar movement simulation. Conclusion: Virtual surgical planning allows better control of complex skeletal movements while maintaining high stability, representing a progressive and essential approach in modern orthognathic surgery.

Article Details

Keywords

Bimaxillary orthognathic surgery; virtual surgical planning; conventional surgical planning; 3D skeletal accuracy.

References

1. Ellis III, E. (1994). Condylar positioning devices for orthognathic surgery: are they necessary?. Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery, 52(6), 536-552.
2. Hsu, S. S. P., Gateno, J., Bell, R. B., Hirsch, D. L., Markiewicz, M. R., Teichgraeber, J. F.,... & Xia, J. J. (2013). Accuracy of a computer-aided surgical simulation protocol for orthognathic surgery: a prospective multicenter study. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, 71(1), 128-142.
3. Posnick, J. C., Ricalde, P., & Ng, P. (2006). A modified approach to “model planning” in orthognathic surgery for patients without a reliable centric relation. Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery, 64(2), 347-356.
4. Quast, A., Santander, P., Kahlmeier, T., Moser, N., Schliephake, H., & Meyer-Marcotty, P. (2021). Predictability of maxillary positioning: a 3D comparison of virtual and conventional orthognathic surgery planning. Head & face medicine, 17(1), 27.
5. Selber, J. C., & Rosen, H. M. (2007). Aesthetics of facial skeletal surgery. Clinics in plastic surgery, 34(3), 437-445.
6. Steinhäuser, E. W. (1996). Historical development of orthognathic surgery. Journal of cranio-Maxillofacial surgery, 24(4), 195-204.
7. Wu, R. T., Wilson, A. T., Gary, C. S., & Steinbacher, D. M. (2019). Complete reoperation in orthognathic surgery. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 143(5), 1053e-1059e.
8. Xu, R., Ye, N., Zhu, S., Shi, B., Li, J., & Lai, W. (2020). Comparison of the postoperative and follow-up accuracy of articulator model surgery and virtual surgical planning in skeletal class III patients. British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, 58(8), 933-939.