ArticleCureus2026
Intraoperative Challenges of Patient-Specific Osteotomy Guides in Anterior Maxillary Osteotomy: A Case Report.
Article in Cureus, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Orthognathic surgery has increasingly incorporated digital workflows and patient-specific surgical guides to enhance accuracy and predictability. While these technologies offer improved planning and execution, their intraoperative application in segmented maxillary osteotomies remains technically demanding. Limited literature exists describing the practical challenges encountered during guide-assisted osteotomy, particularly in anatomically constrained regions. This case report describes the use of a patient-specific cutting guide in a 24-year-old male patient undergoing anterior two-piece maxillary osteotomy for correction of skeletal Class II malocclusion with gummy smile. Virtual surgical planning was performed using cone-beam computed tomography and digital dental models to simulate a 7 mm maxillary setback and 4 mm superior impaction. A custom osteotomy guide and surgical splint were fabricated using computer-aided design (CAD)/computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) technology. Intraoperatively, the guide was positioned following mucoperiosteal flap elevation and used to perform vertical and horizontal osteotomy cuts. The maxillary segment was mobilized, repositioned using a prefabricated occlusal splint, and stabilized with titanium miniplates. The use of the osteotomy guide facilitated accurate transfer of the planned osteotomy lines and segment repositioning. However, intraoperative challenges were encountered, including increased operative time due to guide positioning and verification, limited access during osteotomy cuts, and difficulty in executing palatal osteotomy. Initial instability of the guide due to soft tissue interference required intraoperative adjustment. A minor palatal mucosal tear occurred, which was managed conservatively. Despite these challenges, satisfactory occlusal alignment and postoperative stability were achieved.
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.