ArticleMaxillofacial plastic and reconstructive surgery2025
Augmented reality vs CAD/CAM system in orthognathic surgery: development and accuracy evaluation.
Article in Maxillofacial plastic and reconstructive surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Augmented and virtual reality in dental and oral and maxillofacial surgery education: a systematic review with a taxonomy of training technologies.BMC medical education · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRecent advancements in augmented reality (AR) have gained increasing interest in surgical applications, particularly in maxillofacial surgery. This study evaluates the accuracy and reproducibility of an AR-based navigation system using optical see-through (OST) headsets, in comparison to traditional CAD/CAM-guided approaches for Le Fort I osteotomy. Twenty identical stereolithographic skull models were divided into two groups: one group treated with OST-based AR navigation system to visualize virtual surgical lines on the skull models (n = 10) and the other treated with the conventional CAD/CAM procedure using titanium materialise surgical guides (n = 10). Virtual surgical planning (VSP) was carried out identically for both groups.
resultsSurgical accuracy was assessed by measuring deviations (in mm) between planned and postoperative positions of seven cephalometric reference points. All models in the CAD group achieved deviations below the 2-mm clinical threshold (mean deviation: 0.72 ± 0.38 mm). However, only 4 out of 10 in the OST group met this threshold (mean deviation: 2.27 ± 1.24 mm). A statistical analysis using Mann-Whitney U-test with a significance level of 0.05 was carried out to compare the mean accuracy between OST and CAD groups. The results revealed a statistically significant difference between OST and CAD groups (p-value < 0.005). Nevertheless, progressive improvements in the OST group were observed, likely reflecting a learning curve associated with the new technology.
conclusionsAlthough CAD/CAM remains more accurate, the AR-based system offers advantages in real-time visualization and reduced costs and preoperative time by eliminating the need for 3D-printed guides. However, the current accuracy limitations highlight the need for further refinement of AR systems and increased operator training. Future studies are needed to validate the clinical applicability and reliability of AR-guided orthognathic surgery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.