ArticleHealth science reports2025
Markerless Augmented Reality Guidance System for Maxillofacial Surgery: An Omnidirectional Tracking Method.
Article in Health science reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Background and Aims: Surgeons still face challenges in transposing preoperatively planned osteotomies to the operating room for accurate navigation. Current cutting guide methods in maxillofacial surgery are costly, time-consuming, and invasive. Methods: This study introduces a novel markerless AR guidance system to replace physical cutting guides with digital holographic guides. Microsoft HoloLens 2 was used to track the patient's mandible in real-time without markers, providing automatic alignment. This approach allowed detection from any angle and remained reliable even when parts of the mandible were obstructed. Accuracy was assessed by measuring hologram registration errors, and usability was compared with the clinical gold standard, calculated using an EM sensor in an in-vitro study with eight surgeons. Results: The system achieved an average registration error of under 1.40 mm and a precision of 1.15 mm when measured against the clinical gold standard. Conclusion: The AR system provides a promising, less invasive, cost-effective alternative to traditional cutting guides in maxillofacial surgery, enhancing precision and efficiency.
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.