Traditional model surgery with facebow transfer is not very accurate. We aimed to demonstrate that the Orthopilot™ Navigation System improves the accuracy of maxillary repositioning during Le Fort I osteotomy. Thirty patients underwent Le Fort I osteotomy alone or associated to sagittal split osteotomy. The maxilla positioning was done in two phases. First, the maxilla was positioned with the traditional occlusal splint, the position (“without Orthopilot™”) was recorded by the Orthopilot™. In the second phase, the Orthopilot™ was used to improve positioning; and the final position (“with Orthopilot™”) was recorded, after osteosynthesis. Positioning data were compared with planned data. Positioning data with and without the Orthopilot™ were also compared. Accuracy was classified in distinct classes with three major criteria (conformity, non-conformity, failure) according to the discrepancies. Conformity rate was significantly greater with the Orthopilot™ (2 without the Orthopilot™ compared with 8 with the Orthopilot™; p = 0.01). The failure rate was significantly lower with the Orthopilot™ (18 without Orthopilot™ compared with 7 with the Orthopilot™; p = 0.002). Dispersions of discrepancies were usually lower in all directions with the Orthopilot™. Navigation reduced the risk of discrepancy without cancelling it, especially when large movements are planned. The Orthopilot™ therefore improved the accuracy of traditional occlusal splint during Le Fort I osteotomy.
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
One-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:Subscribe to British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
- Toward a higher accuracy in orthognathic surgery by using intraoperative computer navigation, 3D surgical guides, and/or customized osteosynthesis plates: A systematic review.J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2018; 46: 2108-2119
- Clinical accuracy of waferless maxillary positioning using customized surgical guides and patient specific osteosynthesis in bimaxillary orthognathic surgery.J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2017; 45: 1578-1585
- Three-dimensional treatment planning of orthognathic surgery in the era of virtual imaging.J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009; 67: 2080-2092
- Comparison of the accuracy of maxillary position between conventional model surgery and virtual surgical planning.Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018; 47: 160-166
- Surgical navigation: a systematic review of indications, treatments, and outcomes in oral and maxillofacial surgery.J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2017; 75: 1987-2005
- Computer-assisted mandibular condyle positioning in orthognathic surgery.J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1996; 54: 553-558
- Computer assisted orthognathic surgery: Condyle repositioning.Rev Stomatol Chir Maxillofac Chir Orale. 2013; 114 (in French): 205-210
- Computer-assisted orthognathic surgery: clinical evaluation of a mandibular condyle repositioning system.J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2002; 60: 27-35
- Learning condyle repositioning during orthognathic surgery with a surgical navigation system.Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2019; 48: 952-956
- Quantification of the inaccuracy of conventional articulator model surgery in Le Fort 1 osteotomy: evaluation of 30 patients controlled by the Orthopilot® navigation system.Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2019; 57: 672-677
- The hierarchy of stability and predictability in orthognathic surgery with rigid fixation: an update and extension.Head Face Med. 2007; 3: 21
- Occlusal cant in the frontal plane as a reflection of facial asymmetry.J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1997; 55: 811-817
- Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement.Lancet. 1986; 1: 307-310
- Note on the sampling error of the difference between correlated proportions or percentages.Psychometrika. 1947; 12: 153-157
- Limitations of orthognathic model surgery: theoretical and practical implications.Rev Stomatol Chir Maxillofac. 2004; 105 (in French): 165-169
- Errors in orthognathic surgery planning: the effect of inaccurate study model orientation.Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010; 39: 1103-1108
- Traditional face-bow transfer versus three-dimensional virtual reconstruction in orthognathic surgery.Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2019; 48: 347-354
- Accuracy of perioperative mandibular positions in orthognathic surgery.Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014; 43: 972-979
- The effect of posture and anesthesia on the occlusal relationship in orthognathic surgery.J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1999; 57: 1164-1174
- Systematic three-dimensional analysis of wafer-based maxillary repositioning procedures in orthognathic surgery.J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2017; 45: 1828-1834
- Computer-assisted orthognathic surgery: waferless maxillary positioning, versatility, and accuracy of an image-guided visualisation display.Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2013; 51: 827-833
- A paradigm shift in orthognathic surgery? A comparison of navigation, computer-aided designed/computer-aided manufactured splints, and "classic" intermaxillary splints to surgical transfer of virtual orthognathic planning.J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2013; 71 (2151.e1-21)
- Reliability and feasibility of prediction tracing in orthognathic surgery.J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 1987; 15: 79-83
Published online: July 06, 2020
Accepted: June 8, 2020
Received: December 13, 2019
☆This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
© 2020 The British Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.