Skip to main content
. 2025 Mar 23;17(3):e81051. doi: 10.7759/cureus.81051

Table 2. Data extraction sheet .

ANB: A point-Nasion-B point angle; CAD: Computer-aided design; CAD/CAM: Computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing; CSP: Conventional surgical planning; FFF: Fibula free flap; IS-VSP: Integrated surgical virtual surgical planning; LOS: Length of stay; MAO: Mandibular angle osteotomy; P-VSP: Patient-specific virtual surgical planning; PEEK-PSI: Polyether ether ketone patient-specific implants; SNA: Sella-Nasion-A point angle; SNB: Sella-Nasion-B point angle; TMJ: Temporomandibular joint; UHMWPE: Ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene; VSP: Virtual surgical planning.

Study Population Type of study Mean age of patients Parameters checked Intervention Comparison Outcome Time period
Efanov JI et al., 2018 [18] 54 patients Retrospective review Not specified Adherence to virtual surgical plans (complete, partial, abandoned) Virtual Surgical Planning (VSP) Not specified 85% complete adherence, 9% partially adhered, 4% abandoned July 2012 - October 2016
Yang WF et al., 2018 [19] 10 patients with head and neck tumors Open-label, prospective, single-arm, single-center clinical trial 52.6 years Intraoperative success rate, adaptation of surgical plates, postoperative adverse events, accuracy of reconstruction 3D-printed patient-specific surgical plates Conventional plates (contingency plan) Primary: 100% intraoperative success rate; Secondary: No major or minor complications; Mean absolute distance deviation: 1.40 ± 0.63 mm December 2016 to October 2017
Sun et al., 2013 [20] 15 patients undergoing bimaxillary surgery (excluding cleft lip and palate) Clinical validation study Not provided Accuracy of occlusal fit, surgical movement Use of CAD-designed registration block (CAD_WR) and digital intermediate splint for bimaxillary surgery Planned vs. Actual Surgical Movement No significant difference between planned and actual surgical movements in sagittal, vertical, and horizontal directions October 2010 to April 2012
Liu YF et al., 2014 [21] 15 cases (8 males, 7 females) Clinical case series 39.8 years (range: 15–63 years) Tumor type (ameloblastoma, fibroma, gingival carcinoma), defect size (3 cm × 3 cm - 10 cm × 5 cm), flap size (9.5 cm - 17 cm) Fibular free flap reconstruction with template guidance Conventional free-hand operation Reduced surgical time by 20%, improved accuracy in resection and graft shaping, good postoperative functional recovery December 2011 - December 2013
Soleman J et al., 2015 [22] Infants with craniosynostosis Observational study 8 months Cranial morphology, symmetry, soft-tissue changes, operative outcomes 3D printed surgical templates for frontoorbital advancement Standard procedures without 3D templates Excellent accuracy in cranial modeling, improved reconstruction speed, minimal swelling, good scar healing, no neurological deficits Postoperative follow-up: 3 weeks; Additional follow-up planned: 6 months
Ye N et al., 2015 [23] Nine patients with prominent mandibular angles (8 women, 1 man) Observational study 26 years Accuracy of osteotomy, post-operative symmetry, deviation from simulation Mandibular angle osteotomy (MAO) with 3D printed surgical templates Standard MAO without 3D templates High accuracy in osteotomy, minimal shell-to-shell deviations (2.02 ± 0.32 mm on right, 1.97 ± 0.41 mm on left), no nerve injury, good cosmetic outcomes July 2013 to February 2014
Scolozzi P et al., 2015 [24] Ten consecutive patients with dentofacial deformities (6 men, 4 women) Retrospective study 21.3 years Age, gender, dentofacial deformity, surgical procedure, postoperative complications CAD/CAM surgical splints, cutting guides, customized internal distractors, and PEEK-PSI implants Standard procedures without CAD/CAM No intraoperative complications, stable cosmetic and dimensional results at 1-year follow-up 1 year follow up
Sembronio S et al., 2019 [25] 10 patients, 11 TMJ reconstructions (including bilateral) Retrospective Not specified Prosthesis positioning accuracy, preoperative vs. postoperative measurements Preoperative virtual planning and customized prostheses (titanium alloy and UHMWPE), surgical guides for bone resection and prosthesis placement Preoperative vs. postoperative measurements Lin concordance correlation coefficient: 0.999, 95% CI: 0.999–0.999, 99% CI: 0.999–1.000; 95% limits of agreement: -1.608 mm to 1.598 mm; 79.02% of differences <1 mm; no significant difference (p = 0.83) 2016-2017
Schneider D et al., 2019 [26] 21 patients with retrognathism Prospective 31.1 years (median 32.6 years) Angular differences for maxilla and mandible (SNA, SNB, ANB); accuracy of splints; surgical time; cost Virtual Planning (VSP) vs. Conventional Planning (CSP) Virtual Planning vs. Conventional Planning Significant differences in angular measurements (SNA, SNB, ANB); fewer modifications needed for VSP splints; reduced surgical time with VSP; cost analysis showed VSP was similar to CSP without models 2014 to 2017
Smithers FAE et al., 2018 [27] 6 patients undergoing mandible or maxillary reconstruction Prospective Age range 44–78 years Operative time, length of hospital stay, flap failures, wound infections, recovery complications IS-VSP (Integrated Surgical Virtual Surgical Planning) process for fibula free flap (FFF) reconstructions Conventional VSP Median operative time: 7h 46min; Median length of stay: 13 days; No flap failures; One major complication (wound infection) August 2016 to February 2017
Swendseid BP et al., 2020 [28] 23 patients with midface defects requiring scapula reconstruction Retrospective cohort Median age: 67 (range 22–88) Subunit resection and reconstruction, anatomic position of bone segments, bone segment apposition, postoperative projection symmetry, shoulder dysfunction, quality of life Virtual Surgical Planning (VSP) vs. non-VSP (conventional planning) VSP vs. non-VSP VSP group restored more subunits, achieved better anatomic positioning of bone segments, higher contact between bone segments, comparable operative times and quality of life 2015 to 2019
Sozzi D et al., 2022 [29] 21 patients (9 female, 12 male), mean age 45.9 ± 15.0 years (range 17–65) Retrospective Study 45.9 ± 15.0 years Pre-operative and post-operative positional accuracy of mandibular markers (e.g., condyles, midline, angles) Virtual planning and surgical navigation, including hemi-mandibulectomy and free fibula flap reconstruction Comparison of accuracy between right and left-hand sides Overall discrepancy in mandibular positioning with higher error in mandibular angles; discrepancies analyzed by side January 2010 – September 2018
Mazzola F et al., 2020 [30] 138 patients Retrospective analysis 62.5 years (median) Intensive monitoring days, ward length of stay, length of procedure, postoperative complications, bone segments used, screws, plates, ablative surgery details, donor site, complexity score, costs. Non-VSP, P-VSP Non-VSP vs P-VSP P-VSP group had shorter median LOS, lower median ward costs, and operating costs despite higher material costs; no difference in complication rates. January 2010 to March 2018
Kalmar CL et al., 2020 [31] 1131 consecutive craniofacial index procedures Retrospective chart review Varies by procedure Gender, age at surgery, diagnosis, procedure type, VSP usage Virtual Surgical Planning (VSP) vs. Traditional modalities VSP vs. non-VSP Increased VSP usage in certain procedures; variation in component utilization; trend towards higher VSP use over time January 2011 - December 2018
Barrera JE et al., 2014 [32] 4 cases of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) patients undergoing maxillomandibular advancement (MMA) surgery Case series with analysis of surgical outcomes 40, 52, 48, 53 years Airway measurements (PAS-O, PAS-M), AHI, RDI, LSAT, BMI, tooth-to-lip measurements Virtual Surgical Planning (VSP) Pre-surgical plan vs. Post-surgical results Significant improvement in airway space, reduction in AHI and RDI, preservation of tooth-to-lip measurements, and maintenance of facial aesthetics Follow up of 1 year
Qu X et al., 2017 [33] 52 patients undergoing mandibular reconstruction with osteocutaneous free flaps Observational study 41.4 years (range 19–68) Surgical accuracy (coincidence rate of fibular segments), implant placement accuracy, aesthetic outcomes Virtual Surgical Planning (VSP) and double-barreled fibular reconstruction Preoperative VSP vs. Postoperative outcomes High coincidence rate for upper and lower barrels (93.43% and 89.72% respectively), significant improvement in ramus reconstruction, and generally positive aesthetic outcomes with a few issues July 2010 – September 2016
Mendez BM et al., 2015 [34] 2 patients with complex craniofacial defects Observational study 10 years (case 1), 34 years (case 2) Cost and production time of 3D models, operative time, blood loss, hospital stay In-office 3D printing technology for surgical models None Average cost of $25 and assembly time of 14 hours; successful surgeries with no perioperative complications October 2014 – February 2015
Antonini F et al., 2020 [35] 100 adult patients who underwent two-jaw orthognathic surgery Retrospective case–control study 22.1 years (range 14–46 years) Accuracy of maxillary repositioning (x, y, z axes), overall accuracy, discrepancies between planned and postoperative results Virtual Surgical Planning (VSP) Different years of VSP execution (2013–2017) Improved accuracy over years, with an increase in measurements within 1 mm discrepancy; decreasing discrepancies over time March 2013 – September 2017
De Riu G et al., 2018 [36] 49 patients (19 males, 30 females) Retrospective, Observational 26.4 years 15 angular and linear measures of jaw movements 3D planning with Maxilim® software, intermediate splints, bimaxillary orthognathic surgery Maxilla-first vs. Mandibula-first, Genioplasty vs. No Genioplasty Mean linear differences between planned and actual movements; significant differences in SNA, SNB, and anterior facial height June 2011 to January 2016
Haq J et al., 2014 [37] 5 patients (3 females, 2 males) Case series 44.6 years (range 29–58) Maximum incisal opening; pain levels; heterotopic bone formation Custom-made Biomet implants, virtual surgical planning, resection of ankylosis Preoperative vs. Postoperative conditions Improvement in mouth opening; recurrence of heterotopic bone in some cases 2010 to 2012
Li Y et al., 2015 [38] 12 patients (ages 18–35) from West China Hospital of Stomatology Clinical study Not explicitly stated Linear differences, angular differences, precision of virtual planning Computer-aided orthognathic surgery, virtual planning, guiding templates Simulated vs. actual postoperative outcomes Mean linear differences < 1.8 mm; Mean angular differences < 2.5 degrees; Accurate transfer of virtual plans to surgery January 1 to August 31, 2014
Ying X et al., 2021 [39] 20 patients (16 women, 4 men) Retrospective 25.00 ± 3.96 years Landmark coordinates (x, y, z), RMSD, deviation analysis Segmental LeFort I osteotomy, BSSRO, mandibular anterior subapical osteotomy, genioplasty VSP vs. postoperative results Acceptable accuracy of VSP, RMSD within clinical relevance 2018 to 2020