BackgroundComputer-assisted surgery (CAS) has been introduced to mandible reconstruction with bular free ap in cutting guide placement. When CAS is cooperated with different plate xations, the results show various degrees of errors by which this study aimed to evaluate. MethodsMock surgeries were conducted in 3D-printed mandibles with either 2 types of defects; limited or extensive, reconstructed from 2 ameloblastoma patients. Three types of xations; miniplate, manually bending reconstruction plate and patient-speci c plates are tested, each of which was performed 3 times in each type of defects, adding up to 18 surgeries. One with the least errors was selected and applied with patients whose 3D-printed mandibles derived. Finally, in vivo errors were compared with the mock. ResultsIn limited defect, average errors show no statistical signi cance among all types. In extensive defect, patient-speci c plate had a signi cantly lower average condylar error than manually bending reconstruction plate and miniplate (8.09±2.52 mm vs. 25.49±2.72 and 23.13±13.54 mm, respectively).When patient-speci c plate was applied in vivo, the errors were not signi cantly different from the mock. ConclusionPatient-speci c plates cooperated with CAS shows the least errors. Nevertheless, manually bent reconstruction plates and miniplates could be applied in limited defects with caution.
Background Computer-assisted surgery (CAS) has been introduced to mandible reconstruction with fibular free flap in cutting guide placement. When CAS is cooperated with different plate fixations, the results show various degrees of errors by which this study aimed to evaluate. Methods Mock surgeries were conducted in 3D-printed mandibles with either 2 types of defects; limited or extensive, reconstructed from 2 ameloblastoma patients. Three types of fixations; miniplate, manually bending reconstruction plate and patient-specific plates are tested, each of which was performed 3 times in each type of defects, adding up to 18 surgeries. One with the least errors was selected and applied with patients whose 3D-printed mandibles derived. Finally, in vivo errors were compared with the mock. Results In limited defect, average errors show no statistical significance among all types. In extensive defect, patient-specific plate had a significantly lower average condylar error than manually bending reconstruction plate and miniplate (8.09±2.52 mm vs. 25.49±2.72 and 23.13±13.54 mm, respectively). When patient-specific plate was applied in vivo, the errors were not significantly different from the mock. Conclusion Patient-specific plates cooperated with CAS shows the least errors. Nevertheless, manually bent reconstruction plates and miniplates could be applied in limited defects with caution.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.