Back to Search Start Over

The Amsterdam UMC protocol for computer-assisted mandibular and maxillary reconstruction; A cadaveric study

Authors :
Gustaaf J.C. van Baar
Johannes N. Lodders
Chayenne Chhangur
Lars Leeuwrik
Tymour Forouzanfar
Niels P.T.J. Liberton
W. Erwin R. Berkhout
Henri A.H. Winters
Frank K.J. Leusink
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery / Oral Pathology
AMS - Tissue Function & Regeneration
CCA - Cancer Treatment and quality of life
Plastic, Reconstructive and Hand Surgery
Amsterdam Movement Sciences - Restoration and Development
Amsterdam Movement Sciences
Maxillofacial Surgery (AMC + VUmc)
Maxillofacial Surgery (VUmc)
Oral Radiology
Source :
van Baar, G J C, Lodders, J N, Chhangur, C, Leeuwrik, L, Forouzanfar, T, Liberton, N P T J, Berkhout, W E R, Winters, H A H & Leusink, F K J 2022, ' The Amsterdam UMC protocol for computer-assisted mandibular and maxillary reconstruction; A cadaveric study ', Oral Oncology, vol. 133, 106050, pp. 1-10 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oraloncology.2022.106050, van Baar, G J C, Lodders, J N, Chhangur, C, Leeuwrik, L, Forouzanfar, T, Liberton, N P T J, Berkhout, W E R, Winters, H A H & Leusink, F K J 2022, ' The Amsterdam UMC protocol for computer-assisted mandibular and maxillary reconstruction; A cadaveric study ', Oral Oncology, vol. 133, 106050 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oraloncology.2022.106050, Oral Oncology, 133:106050. Elsevier Limited, Oral Oncology, 133:106050, 1-10. Elsevier Limited
Publication Year :
2022

Abstract

Objectives: In this cadaveric study, the accuracy of CAS guided mandibular and maxillary reconstruction including immediate dental implant placement in different Brown defect classes is assessed. Materials and methods: The virtual planning and surgical procedure was conducted according to a newly proposed Amsterdam UMC reconstruction protocol. Postoperative evaluation was performed according to a previously proposed evaluation guideline. Results: Fourteen mandibular and 6 maxillary reconstructions were performed. Average mandibular angle deviations were 1.52°±1.32, 1.85°±1.58, 1.37°±1.09, 1.78°±1.37, 2.43°±1.52 and 2.83°±2.37, respectively for the left and right axial angles, left and right coronal angles and left and right sagittal angles. A total of 62 dental implants were placed in neomandibles with an average dXYZ values of 3.68 ± 2.21 mm and 16 in neomaxillas with an average dXYZ values of 3.24 ± 1.7 mm. Conclusion: Promising levels of accuracy were achieved for all mandibular angles. Dental implant positions approached the preoperative preferred positions well, within the margin to manufacture prosthetic devices.

Details

ISSN :
18790593 and 13688375
Volume :
133
Database :
OpenAIRE
Journal :
Oral oncology
Accession number :
edsair.doi.dedup.....460872f6e602a16b298b1b16de0aea2a