TY - JOUR
T1 - The Amsterdam UMC protocol for computer-assisted mandibular and maxillary reconstruction; A cadaveric study
AU - van Baar, Gustaaf J.C.
AU - Lodders, Johannes N.
AU - Chhangur, Chayenne
AU - Leeuwrik, Lars
AU - Forouzanfar, Tymour
AU - Liberton, Niels P.T.J.
AU - Berkhout, W. Erwin R.
AU - Winters, Henri A.H.
AU - Leusink, Frank K.J.
N1 - Funding Information: This work was supported by the Oral Reconstruction Foundation [grant number ORF21807] and the Nederlandse Vereniging voor Orale Implantologie NVOI [grant number U180 80]. Publisher Copyright: © 2022 The Author(s)
PY - 2022/10/1
Y1 - 2022/10/1
N2 - Objectives: In this cadaveric study, the accuracy of CAS guided mandibular and maxillary reconstruction including immediate dental implant placement in different Brown defect classes is assessed. Materials and methods: The virtual planning and surgical procedure was conducted according to a newly proposed Amsterdam UMC reconstruction protocol. Postoperative evaluation was performed according to a previously proposed evaluation guideline. Results: Fourteen mandibular and 6 maxillary reconstructions were performed. Average mandibular angle deviations were 1.52°±1.32, 1.85°±1.58, 1.37°±1.09, 1.78°±1.37, 2.43°±1.52 and 2.83°±2.37, respectively for the left and right axial angles, left and right coronal angles and left and right sagittal angles. A total of 62 dental implants were placed in neomandibles with an average dXYZ values of 3.68 ± 2.21 mm and 16 in neomaxillas with an average dXYZ values of 3.24 ± 1.7 mm. Conclusion: Promising levels of accuracy were achieved for all mandibular angles. Dental implant positions approached the preoperative preferred positions well, within the margin to manufacture prosthetic devices.
AB - Objectives: In this cadaveric study, the accuracy of CAS guided mandibular and maxillary reconstruction including immediate dental implant placement in different Brown defect classes is assessed. Materials and methods: The virtual planning and surgical procedure was conducted according to a newly proposed Amsterdam UMC reconstruction protocol. Postoperative evaluation was performed according to a previously proposed evaluation guideline. Results: Fourteen mandibular and 6 maxillary reconstructions were performed. Average mandibular angle deviations were 1.52°±1.32, 1.85°±1.58, 1.37°±1.09, 1.78°±1.37, 2.43°±1.52 and 2.83°±2.37, respectively for the left and right axial angles, left and right coronal angles and left and right sagittal angles. A total of 62 dental implants were placed in neomandibles with an average dXYZ values of 3.68 ± 2.21 mm and 16 in neomaxillas with an average dXYZ values of 3.24 ± 1.7 mm. Conclusion: Promising levels of accuracy were achieved for all mandibular angles. Dental implant positions approached the preoperative preferred positions well, within the margin to manufacture prosthetic devices.
KW - Accuracy
KW - Cadaver
KW - Computer-Assisted
KW - Dental Implant
KW - Fibula Free Flap
KW - Maxillofacial Reconstruction
KW - Surgery
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85135111444&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85135111444&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oraloncology.2022.106050
DO - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oraloncology.2022.106050
M3 - Article
C2 - 35914442
SN - 1368-8375
VL - 133
SP - 1
EP - 10
JO - Oral Oncology
JF - Oral Oncology
M1 - 106050
ER -