Three-Dimensional Computer-Assisted Orthognathic Surgery Traditional Hybrid Versus Full Digital Planning Models

Purpose Three-dimensional (3D) computer-aided planning has truly revolutionized orthognathic surgery (OGS) treatment, but no study has compared the traditional hybrid and full 3D digital planning models. This study compared these virtual planning models in the treatment of asymmetric maxillomandibular disharmony. Methods Young adult patients with an asymmetric skeletal class III deformity who underwent 3D computer-aided 2-jaw OGS using hybrid (alginate dental impression, 2D cephalometric tracings, manual-guided stone model surgery, occlusion setup, and splint fabrication; n = 30) or full digital (laser-scanned dentition, 3D cephalometric tracings, virtual-based occlusion setup and surgery, and computer-generated surgical splint; n = 30) planning models were consecutively recruited. Preoperative and postoperative 3D cephalometric analyses (dental relation, skeletal assessments based on sagittal and frontal views, and soft tissue evaluations) were adopted for intragroup and intergroup comparisons. Postoperative patient-perceived satisfaction with facial appearance was also recorded. Results Both hybrid and full digital planning groups had significant (all P < 0.05) improvements after surgery with respect to facial convexity, incisor overjet, and frontal symmetry parameters. The full 3D digital planning-based OGS treatment had similar (all P > 0.05) 3D cephalometric-derived outcomes (preoperative, postoperative, and treatment-induced change data) and patient-perceived outcomes compared with the traditional hybrid 3D planning method. Conclusions For the decision-making process in selecting the planning model, multidisciplinary teams could consider additional parameters such as patient comfort, storage needs, convenience for data reuse, overall planning time, availability, and costs.