The Precision of Different Types of Plates Fabricated with a Computer-Aided Design and Manufacturing System in Mandibular Reconstruction with Fibular-Free Flaps
2
Issued Date
2023-01-01
Resource Type
ISSN
10492275
eISSN
15363732
Scopus ID
2-s2.0-85145677788
Pubmed ID
36168132
Journal Title
Journal of Craniofacial Surgery
Volume
34
Issue
1
Start Page
187
End Page
197
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
Journal of Craniofacial Surgery Vol.34 No.1 (2023) , 187-197
Suggested Citation
Yodrabum N., Rudeejaroonrung K., Viriya N., Chaikangwan I., Kongkunnavat N., Tianrungroj J., Ongsiriporn M., Piyaman P., Puncreobutr C. The Precision of Different Types of Plates Fabricated with a Computer-Aided Design and Manufacturing System in Mandibular Reconstruction with Fibular-Free Flaps. Journal of Craniofacial Surgery Vol.34 No.1 (2023) , 187-197. 197. doi:10.1097/SCS.0000000000009037 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/123456789/82615
Title
The Precision of Different Types of Plates Fabricated with a Computer-Aided Design and Manufacturing System in Mandibular Reconstruction with Fibular-Free Flaps
Other Contributor(s)
Abstract
Computer-assisted surgery (CAS) has been introduced to mandible reconstruction with fibular-free flap in cutting guide placement. When CAS cooperates with different plate fixations, the results show various degrees of errors by which this study aimed to evaluate. Mock surgeries were conducted in 3D-printed mandibles with 2 types of defects, limited or extensive, reconstructed from 2 ameloblastoma patients. Three types of fixations, miniplate, manually bending reconstruction plate, and patient-specific plate, are tested, each of which was performed 3 times in each type of defect, adding up to 18 surgeries. One with the least errors was selected and applied to patients whose 3D-printed mandibles were derived. Finally, in vivo errors were compared with the mock. In limited defect, average errors show no statistical significance among all types. In extensive defect, patientspecific plate had a significantly lower average condylar error than manually bending reconstruction plate and miniplate (8.09 ± 2.52 mm vs. 25.49 ± 2.72 and 23.13 ± 13.54 mm, respectively). When patient-specific plate was applied in vivo, the errors were not significantly different from the mock. Patientspecific plates that cooperated with CAS showed the least errors. Nevertheless, manually bent reconstruction plates and miniplates could be applied in limited defects with caution.