Digital analysis of the human maxilla to enable semistandardized template tool reconstructions with free fibula transplants.
Digital morphology analysis
Fibula osteotomy
Head and neck anatomy
Maxillary reconstruction
Microvascular fibula transplant
Reconstructive surgery
Journal
Clinical oral investigations
ISSN: 1436-3771
Titre abrégé: Clin Oral Investig
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9707115
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 Sep 2024
07 Sep 2024
Historique:
received:
22
06
2024
accepted:
01
09
2024
medline:
7
9
2024
pubmed:
7
9
2024
entrez:
7
9
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
This study analyzed the human maxilla to support the development of mean-value-based cutting guide systems for maxillary reconstruction, bridging the gap between freehand techniques and virtual surgical planning (VSP). This retrospective cohort study used routine CT scans. DICOM data enabled 3D modelling and the maxilla was divided into four regions: paranasal (R1), facial maxillary sinus wall (R2), zygomatic bone (R3) and alveolar process (R4). Surface comparisons were made with a reference skull. Statistical analyses assessed anatomical variations, focusing on mean distance (Dmean), area of valid distance (AVD), integrated distance (ID) and integrated absolute distance (IAD). The study addressed hemimaxillectomy defects for two-segmental reconstructions using seven defined bilateral points to determine segmental distances and angles. Data from 50 patients showed R2 as the most homogeneous and R4 as the most heterogeneous region. Significant age and gender differences were found in R3 and R4, with younger patients and females having more outliers. Cluster analysis indicated that males had R1 and R3 positioned anterior to the reference skull. The mean angle for segmental reconstruction was 131.24° ± 1.29°, with anterior segment length of 30.71 ± 0.57 mm and posterior length of 28.15 ± 0.86 mm. Anatomical analysis supported the development of semistandardized segmental resection approaches. Although gender and anatomical differences were noted, they did not significantly impact the feasibility of mean-value-based cutting-guide systems. This study provides essential anatomical data for creating cost-effective and efficient reconstruction options for maxillary defects, potentially improving surgical outcomes and expanding reconstructive possibilities beyond current techniques.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39243295
doi: 10.1007/s00784-024-05908-8
pii: 10.1007/s00784-024-05908-8
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
516Subventions
Organisme : Deutsche Gesellschaft für Zahn-, Mund- und Kieferheilkunde (DGZMK)
ID : 35416021
Organisme : Deutsche Gesellschaft für Zahn-, Mund- und Kieferheilkunde (DGZMK)
ID : 35416021
Organisme : Deutsche Gesellschaft für Zahn-, Mund- und Kieferheilkunde (DGZMK)
ID : 35416021
Organisme : Deutsche Gesellschaft für Zahn-, Mund- und Kieferheilkunde (DGZMK)
ID : 35416021
Organisme : Deutsche Gesellschaft für Zahn-, Mund- und Kieferheilkunde (DGZMK)
ID : 35416021
Organisme : Deutsche Gesellschaft für Zahn-, Mund- und Kieferheilkunde (DGZMK)
ID : 35416021
Organisme : Deutsche Gesellschaft für Zahn-, Mund- und Kieferheilkunde (DGZMK)
ID : 35416021
Organisme : Deutsche Gesellschaft für Zahn-, Mund- und Kieferheilkunde (DGZMK)
ID : 35416021
Organisme : Deutsche Gesellschaft für Zahn-, Mund- und Kieferheilkunde (DGZMK)
ID : 35416021
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Su YR, Ganry L, Ozturk C, Lohman R, Al Afif A, McSpadden R, Frias V, Pu JJ (2023) Fibula Flap Reconstruction for the Mandible: Why It Is Still the Workhorse? Atlas Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am 31:121–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cxom.2023.04.005
doi: 10.1016/j.cxom.2023.04.005
pubmed: 37500195
Al Deek NF, Kao HK, Wei FC (2018) The Fibula Osteoseptocutaneous Flap: Concise Review, Goal-Oriented Surgical Technique, and Tips and Tricks. Plast Reconstr Surg 142:913e–923e. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000005065
doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000005065
pubmed: 30239500
Urken ML, Weinberg H, Vickery C, Buchbinder D, Lawson W, Biller HF (1991) Oromandibular reconstruction using microvascular composite free flaps. Report of 71 cases and a new classification scheme for bony, soft-tissue, and neurologic defects. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 117:733–44
doi: 10.1001/archotol.1991.01870190045010
pubmed: 1863438
Qi J, Li M, Wu X, Li X, Yuan Y, Guo K, Han S, Wu Y, Guo F (2024) From zygomatic to zygomatic: Application of 5-segmented fibula flap in orbitomaxillary defects reconstruction. Curr Probl Surg 61:101472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpsurg.2024.101472
doi: 10.1016/j.cpsurg.2024.101472
pubmed: 38704175
Patel A, Harrison P, Cheng A, Bray B, Bell RB (2019) Fibular Reconstruction of the Maxilla and Mandible with Immediate Implant-Supported Prosthetic Rehabilitation: Jaw in a Day. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am 31:369–386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coms.2019.03.002
doi: 10.1016/j.coms.2019.03.002
pubmed: 31164268
Okay DJ, Buchbinder D, Urken M, Jacobson A, Lazarus C, Persky M (2013) Computer-assisted implant rehabilitation of maxillomandibular defects reconstructed with vascularized bone free flaps. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 139:371–381. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoto.2013.83
doi: 10.1001/jamaoto.2013.83
pubmed: 23599073
Hakim SG, Kimmerle H, Trenkle T, Sieg P, Jacobsen HC (2015) Masticatory rehabilitation following upper and lower jaw reconstruction using vascularised free fibula flap and enossal implants-19 years of experience with a comprehensive concept. Clin Oral Invest 19:525–534. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-014-1247-9
doi: 10.1007/s00784-014-1247-9
Urken ML, Buchbinder D, Weinberg H, Vickery C, Sheiner A, Biller HF (1989) Primary Placement of Osseointegrated Implants in Microvascular Mandibular Reconstruction. Otolaryngol-Head Neck Surg 101:56–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/019459988910100111
doi: 10.1177/019459988910100111
pubmed: 2547185
Pirgousis P, Brown D, Fernandes R (2013) Digital measurements of 120 mandibular angles to determine the ideal fibula wedge osteotomy to re-create the mandibular angle for microvascular reconstruction. J Oral Maxillofac Surg: Off J Am Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg 71:2169–2175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2013.05.005
doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2013.05.005
Wang YY, Fan S, Zhang HQ, Lin ZY, Ye JT, Li JS (2016) Virtual Surgical Planning in Precise Maxillary Reconstruction With Vascularized Fibular Graft After Tumor Ablation. J Oral Maxillofac Surg: Off J Am Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg 74:1255–1264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2016.01.010
doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2016.01.010
Weitz J, Wolff KD, Kesting MR, Nobis CP (2018) Development of a novel resection and cutting guide for mandibular reconstruction using free fibula flap. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 46:1975–1978. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2018.09.007
doi: 10.1016/j.jcms.2018.09.007
pubmed: 30293853
Weitz J, Grabenhorst A, Singer H, Niu M, Grill FD, Kamreh D, Classen CAS, Wolff KD, Ritschl LM (2023) Mandibular reconstructions with free fibula flap using standardized partially adjustable cutting guides or CAD/CAM technique: a three- and two-dimensional comparison. Front Oncol 13:1167071. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2023.1167071
doi: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1167071
pubmed: 37228490
pmcid: 10203950
Nobis CP, Kesting MR, Wolff KD, Frohwitter G, Rau A, Weitz J (2020) Development of a template tool for facilitating fibula osteotomy in reconstruction of mandibular defects by digital analysis of the human mandible. Clin Oral Invest 24:3077–3083. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-019-03177-4
doi: 10.1007/s00784-019-03177-4
van Eijnatten M, Koivisto J, Karhu K, Forouzanfar T, Wolff J (2017) The impact of manual threshold selection in medical additive manufacturing. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 12:607–615. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-016-1490-4
doi: 10.1007/s11548-016-1490-4
pubmed: 27718124
Edelmers E, Kazoka D, Pilmane M (2021) Creation of anatomically correct and optimized for 3d printing human bones models. Appl Syst Innov 4. https://doi.org/10.3390/asi4030067
Brown JS, Shaw RJ (2010) Reconstruction of the maxilla and midface: introducing a new classification. Lancet Oncol 11:1001–1008. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(10)70113-3
doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(10)70113-3
pubmed: 20932492
Segner D, Hasund A (1994) Individualisierte Kephalometrie. Franklin Printing and Publishing House Ltd, Hamburg
Holst S, Karl M, Wichmann M, Matta RE (2011) A new triple-scan protocol for 3D fit assessment of dental restorations. Quintessence Int 42:651–657
pubmed: 21842005
Segner D, Hasund A (2003) Individualisierte Kephalometrie. Verlag und Vertrieb, Hamburg, Dietmar Segner
Hoaglin DC, Iglewicz B, Tukey JW (1986) Performance of Some Resistant Rules for Outlier Labeling. J Am Stat Assoc 81:991–999. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1986.10478363
doi: 10.1080/01621459.1986.10478363
Knief U, Forstmeier W (2021) Violating the normality assumption may be the lesser of two evils. Behav Res Methods 53(6):2576–2590. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-021-01587-5
doi: 10.3758/s13428-021-01587-5
pubmed: 33963496
pmcid: 8613103
Rasch D, Guiard V (2004) The robustness of parametric statistical methods. Psych Sci 46:175–208
Rasch D, Kubinger K, Moder K (2011) The two-sample t test: Pre-testing its assumptions does not pay off. Stat Pap 52:219–231. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00362-009-0224-x
doi: 10.1007/s00362-009-0224-x
Enomoto R, Hanusz Z, Hara A, Seo T (2020) Multivariate normality test using normalizing transformation for Mardia’s multivariate kurtosis. Commun Stat - Simul Comput 49:684–698. https://doi.org/10.1080/03610918.2019.1661476
doi: 10.1080/03610918.2019.1661476
Kodinariya T, Makwana P (2013) Review on Determining of Cluster in K-means Clustering. Int J Adv Res Comp Sci Manage Studies 1:90–95
Yuan C, Yang H (2019) Research on K-Value selection method of K-Means clustering algorithm. J 2:226–235. https://doi.org/10.3390/j2020016
Andrade C (2021) Harking, cherry-picking, p-hacking, fishing expeditions, and data dredging and mining as questionable research practices. J Clin Psychiatry 82. https://doi.org/10.4088/JCP.20f13804
Olmos M, Matta R, Buchbender M, Jaeckel F, Nobis CP, Weber M, Kesting M, Lutz R (2023) 3D assessment of the nasolabial region in cleft models comparing an intraoral and a facial scanner to a validated baseline. Sci Rep 13:12216. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-39352-7
doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-39352-7
pubmed: 37500683
pmcid: 10374634
Seidel A, Schmitt C, Matta RE, Buchbender M, Wichmann M, Berger L (2022) Investigation of the palatal soft tissue volume: a 3D virtual analysis for digital workflows and presurgical planning. BMC Oral Health 22:361. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-022-02391-z
doi: 10.1186/s12903-022-02391-z
pubmed: 35999531
pmcid: 9400256
Schulz KL, Kesting MR, Nobis CP, Matta R, Lutz R (2023) Three-dimensional evaluation of condylar position after mandibular reconstruction with a fibula free flap-comparison of different surgical techniques. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 52:648–655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2022.10.003
doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2022.10.003
pubmed: 36274023
Chang EI, Clemens MW, Garvey PB, Skoracki RJ, Hanasono MM (2012) Cephalometric analysis for microvascular head and neck reconstruction. Head Neck 34:1607–1614. https://doi.org/10.1002/hed.21967
doi: 10.1002/hed.21967
pubmed: 22290660
Nguyen S, Tran KL, Wang E, Britton H, Durham JS, Prisman E (2021) Maxillectomy defects: Virtually comparing fibular and scapular free flap reconstructions. Head Neck 43:2623–2633. https://doi.org/10.1002/hed.26731
doi: 10.1002/hed.26731
pubmed: 33961717