Multicenter Study on the Use of Patient-specific CAD/CAM Reconstruction Plates for Mandibular Reconstruction

Overview

Journal Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg

Publisher Springer

Specialties General Surgery
Radiology

Date 2015 Apr 7

PMID 25843949

Citations 57

Authors

Frank Wilde

Henning Hanken

Florian Probst

Alexander Schramm

Max Heiland

Carl-Peter Cornelius

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: For the new generation of mandibular reconstruction, patient-specific mandible reconstruction plates (PSMPs) have been developed which are milled from titanium after preoperative computer planning using CAD/CAM procedures. Resection margins and plate position are determined by surgical guides. In addition, length and shape of the plate and the number and angulation of the screw holes can be planned.

Methods: 30 patients received such PSMP. Indication ranged from stabilization osteosynthesis, single alloplastic stand-alone reconstruction to microvascular reconstructions. Time for planning, fit of surgical guides and plates, pre-/postoperative occlusion, radiological position of the temporo mandibular joint and complications were recorded.

Results: The median time for online planning was 35 min. The results concerning fit and handling of the PSMP and the surgical guides were mainly very positive. In six cases, the plan had to be adapted to the intraoperative clinical needs. The postoperative position of the condyles in the temporo mandibular fossae was regular in 28 cases. The evaluation of the occlusion was not representative due to not clearly identifiable occlusion in 2/3 of the cases. Nevertheless, complications like postoperative extraoral plate exposure, infection, graft and flap necrosis or difficulties to position the guides or the plate during surgery occurred.

Conclusions: Mandibular reconstruction with PSMP offers a broad range of opportunities and benefits compared with standard procedures and can be recommended for all kind of mandibular reconstructions. It is not yet foreseeable whether PSMP will in future become routine clinical practice for mandibular reconstruction or will be confined to selected isolated cases.

Citing Articles

The role of patient specific implants in the oral and maxillofacial region.

Roy I, Desai A, Ramyasri M, Mukesh K Med J Armed Forces India. 2024; 80(4):387-391.

PMID: 39071763 PMC: 11280128. DOI: 10.1016/j.mjafi.2024.04.022.

Fibula Grafting for Oromandibular Reconstruction and its Effect on Patient Quality of Life - A Scoping Review.

Ebeling M, Hagmann A, Derka S, Schramm A, Wilde F, Scheurer M In Vivo. 2024; 38(4):1537-1545.

PMID: 38936931 PMC: 11215598. DOI: 10.21873/invivo.13604.

Bone reconstruction using CAD/CAM technology in head and neck surgical oncology. A narrative review of state of the art and aesthetic-functional outcomes.

Copelli C, Cacciatore F, Cocis S, Maglitto F, Barbara F, Iocca O Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital. 2024; 44(Suppl. 1):S58-S66.

PMID: 38745517 PMC: 11098535. DOI: 10.14639/0392-100X-suppl.1-44-2024-N2819.

Resection status and margin control in intraoperative frozen sectioning analysis of oral squamous cell carcinoma.

Neumann F, Straub X, Mrosk F, Rubarth K, Wolfsberg J, Piwonski I Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2024; 28(3):1209-1218.

PMID: 38532169 PMC: 11330392. DOI: 10.1007/s10006-024-01238-x.

Use of customized 3-dimensional printed mandibular prostheses with a dental implant pressure-reducing device in mandibular body defect: A finite element study performing multiresponse surface methodology.

Chen C, Huang W, Liu S, Wang L, Liu P, Chen P J Dent Sci. 2024; 19(1):502-514.

PMID: 38303793 PMC: 10829725. DOI: 10.1016/j.jds.2023.09.011.

References

Schrag C, Chang Y, Tsai C, Wei F . Complete rehabilitation of the mandible following segmental resection. J Surg Oncol. 2006; 94(6):538-45. DOI: 10.1002/jso.20491. View

Toro C, Robiony M, Costa F, Zerman N, Politi M . Feasibility of preoperative planning using anatomical facsimile models for mandibular reconstruction. Head Face Med. 2007; 3:5. PMC: 1783647. DOI: 10.1186/1746-160X-3-5. View

Crawford S . Condylar axis position, as determined by the occlusion and measured by the CPI instrument, and signs and symptoms of temporomandibular dysfunction. Angle Orthod. 1999; 69(2):103-15; discussion 115-6. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(1999)069<0103:CAPADB>2.3.CO;2. View

Schimmele S . Delayed reconstruction of continuity defects of the mandible after tumor surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2001; 59(11):1340-4. DOI: 10.1053/joms.2001.27826. View

Hellem S, Olofsson J . Titanium-coated hollow screw and reconstruction plate system (THORP) in mandibular reconstruction. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 1988; 16(4):173-83. DOI: 10.1016/s1010-5182(88)80043-x. View

Vuillemin T, Raveh J, Sutter F . Mandibular reconstruction with the titanium hollow screw reconstruction plate (THORP) system: evaluation of 62 cases. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1988; 82(5):804-14. DOI: 10.1097/00006534-198811000-00013. View

Hallermann W, Olsen S, Bardyn T, Taghizadeh F, Banic A, Iizuka T . A new method for computer-aided operation planning for extensive mandibular reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006; 117(7):2431-7. DOI: 10.1097/01.prs.0000219076.83890.e8. View

Seruya M, Fisher M, Rodriguez E . Computer-assisted versus conventional free fibula flap technique for craniofacial reconstruction: an outcomes comparison. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013; 132(5):1219-1228. DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182a3c0b1. View

Baker A, McMahon J, Parmar S . Immediate reconstruction of continuity defects of the mandible after tumor surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2001; 59(11):1333-9. DOI: 10.1053/joms.2001.27825. View

10.

Wilde F, Winter K, Kletsch K, Lorenz K, Schramm A . Mandible reconstruction using patient-specific pre-bent reconstruction plates: comparison of standard and transfer key methods. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2014; 10(2):129-40. DOI: 10.1007/s11548-014-1065-1. View

11.

Wilde F, Plail M, Riese C, Schramm A, Winter K . Mandible reconstruction with patient-specific pre-bent reconstruction plates: comparison of a transfer key method to the standard method--results of an in vitro study. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2011; 7(1):57-63. DOI: 10.1007/s11548-011-0599-8. View

12.

Essig H, Rana M, Kokemueller H, von See C, Ruecker M, Tavassol F . Pre-operative planning for mandibular reconstruction - a full digital planning workflow resulting in a patient specific reconstruction. Head Neck Oncol. 2011; 3:45. PMC: 3195208. DOI: 10.1186/1758-3284-3-45. View

13.

Freudlsperger C, Bodem J, Engel E, Hoffmann J . Mandibular reconstruction with a prefabricated free vascularized fibula and implant-supported prosthesis based on fully three-dimensional virtual planning. J Craniofac Surg. 2014; 25(3):980-2. DOI: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000000551. View

14.

Farwell D, Futran N . Oromandibular reconstruction. Facial Plast Surg. 2002; 16(2):115-26. DOI: 10.1055/s-2000-12573. View

15.

Modabber A, Ayoub N, Mohlhenrich S, Goloborodko E, Sonmez T, Ghassemi M . The accuracy of computer-assisted primary mandibular reconstruction with vascularized bone flaps: iliac crest bone flap versus osteomyocutaneous fibula flap. Med Devices (Auckl). 2014; 7:211-7. PMC: 4064953. DOI: 10.2147/MDER.S62698. View

16.

Leonard M . Preventing rotation of the proximal fragment in the sagittal ramus split operation. J Oral Surg. 1976; 34(10):942. View

17.

Martola M, Lindqvist C, Hanninen H, Al-Sukhun J . Fracture of titanium plates used for mandibular reconstruction following ablative tumor surgery. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2006; 80(2):345-52. DOI: 10.1002/jbm.b.30603. View

18.

Wilde F, Cornelius C, Schramm A . Computer-Assisted Mandibular Reconstruction using a Patient-Specific Reconstruction Plate Fabricated with Computer-Aided Design and Manufacturing Techniques. Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr. 2014; 7(2):158-66. PMC: 4078148. DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1371356. View

19.

Leonard M . Maintenance of condylar position after sagittal split osteotomy of the mandible. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1985; 43(5):391-2. DOI: 10.1016/0278-2391(85)90265-4. View