Skeletal stability after mandible bilateral sagittal split osteotomy - comparison of patient-specific implant and mini-plate fixation: A retrospective study.

The aim of the study was to compare the stability of the virtual surgical planning (VSP) and computer-aided design accompanied by patient-specific implants (PSIs) and conventional mini-plates in mandible advancement with bilateral sagittal split osteotomy (BSSO). This retrospective study evaluates the clinical and cephalometric records of 53 patients (12 male, 41 female) treated with BSSO in Helsinki University Hospital. Subjects were divided into two groups: VSP-PSI (21 patients: 4 male and 17 female; mean age 38 years, range 25-53 years); and conventional wafer-based repositioning with mini-plate fixation (32 patients: 8 male and 24 female; mean age 39 years, range 21-56 years). The effect of the amount and direction of the advancement on the stability was also analysed individually. The standardized lateral cephalometric radiographs in three time points were analysed to compare the groups. After surgery (T2), there were no differences between groups in cephalometric variables. During follow-up (T2-T3), the cephalometric variables in both Groups A and B were stable, so there was no difference in stability between the VSP-PSI and the conventional mini-plate groups. During follow-up, the mandibles rotated clockwise or counterclockwise, relapsed towards their original direction, and the changes were statistically significant (jaw relationship; p = 0.018, soft tissue profile; p = 0.025); when the advancement of mandible was >6 mm, the increase in gonial angle compared to mandibles advanced ≤6 mm was statistically significant (p = 0.03). VSP-PSI and conventional mini-plate fixation can be considered equally stable. Large advancements with counterclockwise rotation regardless of fixation method are more susceptible to relapse. VSP-PSI alone cannot solve the relapse-related concerns in mandible osteotomy.

Early experience of wafer-free Le Fort I osteotomy with patient-specific implants in cleft lip and palate patients.

PURPOSE: The use of virtual surgical planning and patient-specific saw and drill guides combined with customized osteosynthesis is becoming a gold standard in orthognathic surgery. The aim of this study is to report preliminary results of the use of virtual surgical planning and the wafer-free PSI technique in cleft patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patient-specific saw and drill guides combined with milled patient-specific 3D titanium alloy implants were used in reposition and fixation in Le Fort I osteotomy of 12 cleft patients. Surgical information was retrieved from hospital records. Pre- and post-operative lateral cephalograms were analyzed. RESULTS: In 10 of 12 cases, the implants fitted as planned to predesigned drill holes and bone contours with high precision. In one patient, the mobilization of the maxilla was too demanding for virtually planned advancement, and the implants could not be used. In another patient, PSI fitting was impaired due to an insufficient mobilization of maxilla and tension on PSI fixation with screws. After the surgery, the mean advancement of the anterior maxilla (point A) of all patients was 5.8 mm horizontally (range 2.7-10.1) and -3.1 mm vertically (range -9.2 to 3.4). Skeletal relationships of the maxilla and mandible could be corrected successfully in all patients except for the one whose PSI could not be used. CONCLUSIONS: Virtual surgical planning combined with PSI is a possible useful clinical adjunct for the correction of maxillary hypoplasia in cleft patients. Large maxillary advancements and scarring may be cause problems for desired advancement and for the use of implants.