In-house CAD/CAM fabricated repositioning guide in maxillary repositioning after Le Fort I osteotomy

Abstract

Objective

This study aimed to compare the accuracy of two transferring methods, which are the intermediate splint made by computer-aided design (CAD)/computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) and the customized maxillary repositioning guide for orthognathic surgery.

Materials and methods

Patient data regarding virtual surgical simulations were collected. For analyzing the accuracy, the postoperative cone-beam computed tomography and preoperative simulation data were superimposed. The x, y, and z coordinates were obtained at three landmarks in the maxillary dentition, and the linear and angular differences between the surgical simulation and the actual surgery were evaluated.

Results

Thirty-three patients were included in this study, 16 in the splint group and 17 in the guide group. One coordinate in the guide group and nine in the splint group showed errors of >2 mm, with a statistically significant difference. There was no significant difference between the two groups in the three-dimensional error distance at each reference point. In most measurements, the interquartile range of the guide group showed a narrower distribution than that of the splint group.

Conclusion

It is more advantageous to use a customized maxillary repositioning guide than an intermediate splint made via CAD/CAM to obtain an accuracy within the 2 mm discrepancy range.