Head & face medicine · 2025
Comparison of the accuracy between guided and freehand placement of periorbital implants-a cadaveric split-face study.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Lohn Britta M, Raith Stefan, Winnand Philipp, Ooms Mark, Rickert Tino, Wagenknecht Nina, Hölzle Frank, Modabber Ali
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Orbital exenteration (exenteratio orbitae) is a disfiguring procedure performed with tumor resection. Rapid realization of an implant-retained craniofacial prosthesis with a secure fit for an active life is essential to restore quality of life. Osseointegrated implants are commonly used for maxillofacial rehabilitation. The precise positioning of these implants is more difficult in cases of reduced bone availability, but it enables anaplastologists to achieve an unobtrusive restoration.
METHODS: After computed tomography (CT) scans of 13 cadaver heads, 104 craniomaxillofacial (CMF) implants were digitally planned. Using a split-face study design, one periorbital side was treated with customized surgical guides and one side was operated freehand. The digital evaluation of position, axis, and insertion depth compared to the digital planning was conducted for 78 periorbital implants using digital evaluation of a postoperative CT scan to measure the linear and angular deviation from preoperative planning.
RESULTS: The linear deviation in 3D (p = 0.0105), drilling depth (p = 0.0013), and angular deviation (p = 0.0004) were significantly greater in the freehand group than in the guided computer-assisted implant surgery (CAIS) group.
CONCLUSION: Digital planning enables the available bone support to be preoperatively estimated. CAIS with surgical guides offers significantly more accurate results for CMF implant placement than a freehand transfer of digital planning. Guided CAIS requires a larger surgical approach and therefore fails to achieve the goal of a minimally invasive technique.
METHODS: After computed tomography (CT) scans of 13 cadaver heads, 104 craniomaxillofacial (CMF) implants were digitally planned. Using a split-face study design, one periorbital side was treated with customized surgical guides and one side was operated freehand. The digital evaluation of position, axis, and insertion depth compared to the digital planning was conducted for 78 periorbital implants using digital evaluation of a postoperative CT scan to measure the linear and angular deviation from preoperative planning.
RESULTS: The linear deviation in 3D (p = 0.0105), drilling depth (p = 0.0013), and angular deviation (p = 0.0004) were significantly greater in the freehand group than in the guided computer-assisted implant surgery (CAIS) group.
CONCLUSION: Digital planning enables the available bone support to be preoperatively estimated. CAIS with surgical guides offers significantly more accurate results for CMF implant placement than a freehand transfer of digital planning. Guided CAIS requires a larger surgical approach and therefore fails to achieve the goal of a minimally invasive technique.