Computer-Assisted Surgery in Mandible Reconstruction

Abstract

Computer-assisted surgery is the most significant recent advancement in osseous head and neck reconstruction. Computer-aided design (CAD) software allows computerized planning of resection and reconstruction. Computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) can be used to create models, cutting guides, and patient-specific plates. Several studies have shown that these techniques are more accurate and result in decreased flap ischemia times compared with conventional techniques. CAD also facilitates the immediate placement of dental implants. The most useful application of computer-assisted surgery is delayed reconstruction, in which soft tissue contraction and the absence of a specimen as a reference make accurate estimation of the defect challenging. The drawbacks of CAD/CAM are lack of intraoperative flexibility and cost. Some centers have created in-house CAD/CAM processes using open-source software and commercially available three-dimensional printers.

Keywords

dental implants - computer-aided manufacturing - computer-aided design

Publikationsverlauf

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
27. Mai 2024

• References

• 1 Matros E, Albornoz CR, Rensberger M, Weimer K, Garfein ES. Computer-assisted design and computer-assisted modeling technique optimization and advantages over traditional methods of osseous flap reconstruction. J Reconstr Microsurg 2014; 30 (05) 289-296
• 2 Myers PL, Nelson JA, Rosen EB, Allen Jr RJ, Disa JJ, Matros E. Virtual surgical planning for oncologic mandibular and maxillary reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2021; 9 (09) e3672
• 3 Tarsitano A, Mazzoni S, Cipriani R, Scotti R, Marchetti C, Ciocca L. The CAD-CAM technique for mandibular reconstruction: an 18 patients oncological case-series. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2014; 42 (07) 1460-1464
• 4 Fichter AM, Ritschl LM, Georg R. et al. Effect of segment length and number of osteotomy sites on cancellous bone perfusion in free fibula flaps. J Reconstr Microsurg 2019; 35 (02) 108-116
• 5 Faverani LP, Rios BR, Santos AMS. et al. Predictability of single versus double-barrel vascularized fibula flaps and dental implants in mandibular reconstructions: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies. J Prosthet Dent 2023; S0022-3913 (23)00686-8
• 6 Goodson AM, Kittur MA, Evans PL, Williams EM. Patient-specific, printed titanium implants for reconstruction of mandibular continuity defects: a systematic review of the evidence. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2019; 47 (06) 968-976
• 7 Kasper R, Winter K, Pietzka S, Schramm A, Wilde F. Biomechanical in vitro study on the stability of patient-specific CAD/CAM mandibular reconstruction plates: a comparison between selective laser melted, milled, and hand-bent plates. Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr 2021; 14 (02) 135-143
• 8 Nyirjesy SC, Heller M, von Windheim N. et al. The role of computer aided design/computer assisted manufacturing (CAD/CAM) and 3-dimensional printing in head and neck oncologic surgery: a review and future directions. Oral Oncol 2022; 132: 105976
• 9 Ciocca L, Mazzoni S, Fantini M. et al. A CAD/CAM-prototyped anatomical condylar prosthesis connected to a custom-made bone plate to support a fibula free flap. Med Biol Eng Comput 2012; 50 (07) 743-749
• 10 Tarsitano A, Battaglia S, Ricotta F. et al. Accuracy of CAD/CAM mandibular reconstruction: a three-dimensional, fully virtual outcome evaluation method. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2018; 46 (07) 1121-1125
• 11 Ciocca L, Tarsitano A, Marchetti C, Scotti R. A CAD-CAM-prototyped temporomandibular condyle connected to a bony plate to support a free fibula flap in patients undergoing mandiblectomy: a pilot study with 5 years of follow up. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2016; 44 (07) 811-819
• 12 Magrin GL, Rafael SNF, Passoni BB. et al. Clinical and tomographic comparison of dental implants placed by guided virtual surgery versus conventional technique: a split-mouth randomized clinical trial. J Clin Periodontol 2020; 47 (01) 120-128
• 13 Rosen EB, Kyle Gazdeck R, Goldman DA. et al. An Anatomic analysis of fibula flap mandible reconstructions: implications for endosseous implant placement. Plast Reconstr Surg 2022; 149 (06) 1419-1428
• 14 Allen Jr RJ, Shenaq DS, Rosen EB. et al. Immediate dental implantation in oncologic jaw reconstruction: workflow optimization to decrease time to full dental rehabilitation. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2019; 7 (01) e2100
• 15 Stranix JT, Stern CS, Rensberger M. et al. A virtual surgical planning algorithm for delayed maxillomandibular reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2019; 143 (04) 1197-1206
• 16 Lyons A, Ghazali N. Osteoradionecrosis of the jaws: current understanding of its pathophysiology and treatment. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2008; 46 (08) 653-660
• 17 Kuhnt T, Becker A, Bloching M. et al. Phase II trial of a simultaneous radiochemotherapy with cisplatinum and paclitaxel in combination with hyperfractionated-accelerated radiotherapy in locally advanced head and neck tumors. Med Oncol 2006; 23 (03) 325-333
• 18 Kraeima J, Steenbakkers RJHM, Spijkervet FKL, Roodenburg JLN, Witjes MJH. Secondary surgical management of osteoradionecrosis using three-dimensional isodose curve visualization: a report of three cases. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2018; 47 (02) 214-219
• 19 van Baar GJC, Leeuwrik L, Lodders JN. et al. A novel treatment concept for advanced stage mandibular osteoradionecrosis combining isodose curve visualization and nerve preservation: a prospective pilot study. Front Oncol 2021; 11: 630123
• 20 Glas HH, Kraeima J, Tribius S. et al. Three-dimensional evaluation of isodose radiation volumes in cases of severe mandibular osteoradionecrosis for the prediction of recurrence after segmental resection. J Pers Med 2022; 12 (05) 834
• 21 Qin M, Liu Y, Wang L. et al. Design and optimization of the fixing plate for customized mandible implants. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2015; 43 (07) 1296-1302
• 22 Bedogni A, Bettini G, Bedogni G. et al. Safety of boneless reconstruction of the mandible with a CAD/CAM designed titanium device: the replica cohort study. Oral Oncol 2021; 112: 105073
• 23 May MM, Howe BM, O'Byrne TJ. et al. Short and long-term outcomes of three-dimensional printed surgical guides and virtual surgical planning versus conventional methods for fibula free flap reconstruction of the mandible: decreased nonunion and complication rates. Head Neck 2021; 43 (08) 2342-2352
• 24 Seruya M, Fisher M, Rodriguez ED. Computer-assisted versus conventional free fibula flap technique for craniofacial reconstruction: an outcomes comparison. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013; 132 (05) 1219-1228
• 25 Powcharoen W, Yang WF, Yan Li K, Zhu W, Su YX. Computer-assisted versus conventional freehand mandibular reconstruction with fibula free flap: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg 2019; 144 (06) 1417-1428
• 26 Hanasono MM, Skoracki RJ. Computer-assisted design and rapid prototype modeling in microvascular mandible reconstruction. Laryngoscope 2013; 123 (03) 597-604
• 27 Padilla PL, Mericli AF, Largo RD, Garvey PB. Computer-aided design and manufacturing versus conventional surgical planning for head and neck reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg 2021; 148 (01) 183-192
• 28 Chang EI, Jenkins MP, Patel SA, Topham NS. Long-term operative outcomes of preoperative computed tomography-guided virtual surgical planning for osteocutaneous free flap mandible reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2016; 137 (02) 619-623
• 29 Pucci R, Weyh A, Smotherman C, Valentini V, Bunnell A, Fernandes R. Accuracy of virtual planned surgery versus conventional free-hand surgery for reconstruction of the mandible with osteocutaneous free flaps. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2020; 49 (09) 1153-1161
• 30 Wang YY, Zhang HQ, Fan S. et al. Mandibular reconstruction with the vascularized fibula flap: comparison of virtual planning surgery and conventional surgery. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2016; 45 (11) 1400-1405
• 31 Ohkoshi A, Sato N, Kurosawa K. et al. Impact of CAD/CAM mandibular reconstruction on chewing and swallowing function after surgery for locally advanced oral cancer: a retrospective study of 50 cases. Auris Nasus Larynx 2021; 48 (05) 1007-1012
• 32 Dong Z, Li B, Xie R, Wu Q, Zhang L, Bai S. Comparative study of three kinds of fibula cutting guides in reshaping fibula for the reconstruction of mandible: An accuracy simulation study in vitro. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2017; 45 (08) 1227-1235
• 33 Azuma M, Yanagawa T, Ishibashi-Kanno N. et al. Mandibular reconstruction using plates prebent to fit rapid prototyping 3-dimensional printing models ameliorates contour deformity. Head Face Med 2014; 10: 45
• 34 McCann AC, Shnayder Y, Przylecki WH. et al. Comparison of modern rigid fixation plating outcomes for segmental mandibular microvascular reconstruction. Laryngoscope 2019; 129 (05) 1081-1086
• 35 Allen Jr RJ, Nelson JA, Polanco TO. et al. Short-term outcomes following virtual surgery-assisted immediate dental implant placement in free fibula flaps for oncologic mandibular reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2020; 146 (06) 768e-776e
• 36 Panchal H, Shamsunder MG, Petrovic I. et al. Dental implant survival in vascularized bone flaps: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg 2020; 146 (03) 637-648
• 37 Nham TT, Koudougou C, Piot B, Corre P, Bertin H, Longis J. Prosthetic rehabilitation in patients with jaw reconstruction by fibula free flap: a systematic review. J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg 2023; 125 (03) 101735
• 38 Salinero L, Boczar D, Barrow B. et al. Patient-centred outcomes and dental implant placement in computer-aided free flap mandibular reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2022; 60 (10) 1283-1291
• 39 Runyan CM, Sharma V, Staffenberg DA. et al. Jaw in a day: state of the art in maxillary reconstruction. J Craniofac Surg 2016; 27 (08) 2101-2104
• 40 Qaisi M, Kolodney H, Swedenburg G, Chandran R, Caloss R. Fibula jaw in a day: state of the art in maxillofacial reconstruction. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2016; 74 (06) 1284.e1-1284.e15
• 41 Patel A, Harrison P, Cheng A, Bray B, Bell RB. Fibular reconstruction of the maxilla and mandible with immediate implant-supported prosthetic rehabilitation: jaw in a day. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am 2019; 31 (03) 369-386
• 42 Toto JM, Chang EI, Agag R, Devarajan K, Patel SA, Topham NS. Improved operative efficiency of free fibula flap mandible reconstruction with patient-specific, computer-guided preoperative planning. Head Neck 2015; 37 (11) 1660-1664
• 43 Tarsitano A, Battaglia S, Crimi S, Ciocca L, Scotti R, Marchetti C. Is a computer-assisted design and computer-assisted manufacturing method for mandibular reconstruction economically viable?. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2016; 44 (07) 795-799
• 44 Barry CP, MacDhabheid C, Tobin K. et al. 'Out of house' virtual surgical planning for mandible reconstruction after cancer resection: is it oncologically safe?. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2021; 50 (08) 999-1002
• 45 Smithers FAE, Cheng K, Jayaram R, Mukherjee P, Clark JR. Maxillofacial reconstruction using in-house virtual surgical planning. ANZ J Surg 2018; 88 (09) 907-912
• 46 Johal M, Ma JNB, Parthasarathi K. et al. Institutional-based and commercial virtual surgical planning in maxillomandibular reconstruction—comparing the digital plan and postoperative scan. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2022; 75 (04) 1399-1407
• 47 Pu JJ, Choi WS, Yu P, Wong MCM, Lo AWI, Su YX. Do predetermined surgical margins compromise oncological safety in computer-assisted head and neck reconstruction?. Oral Oncol 2020; 111: 104914
• 48 Goetze E, Moergel M, Gielisch M, Kämmerer PW. Safety of resection margins in CAD/CAM-guided primarily reconstructed oral squamous cell carcinoma—a retrospective case series. Oral Maxillofac Surg 2019; 23 (04) 459-464