Skip to main content
Chinese Journal of Reparative and Reconstructive Surgery logoLink to Chinese Journal of Reparative and Reconstructive Surgery
. 2023 Feb;37(2):247–251. [Article in Chinese] doi: 10.7507/1002-1892.202210086

正颌外科数字化咬合设置研究进展

Research progress of digital occlusion setup in orthognathic surgery

Lei LI 1, Feng NIU 1,*
PMCID: PMC9970784  PMID: 36796824

Abstract

Objective

To review the research progress of digital occlusion setup in orthognathic surgery.

Methods

The literature related to digital occlusion setup in orthognathic surgery in recent years was consulted, and the imaging basis, methods, clinical applications as well as existing problems were reviewed.

Results

Digital occlusion setup in orthognathic surgery includes manual, semi-automatics, and fully automatic methods. The manual method mainly relies on visual cues for operation, which is difficult to ensure the best occlusion set up, though relatively flexible. The semi-automatic method utilizes the computer software for partial occlusion set up and adjustment, but the occlusion result is still largely depended by manual operation. The fully automatic method completely depends on the operation of computer software, and targeted algorithms for different occlusion reconstruction situations are needed.

Conclusion

The preliminary research results have confirmed the accuracy and reliability of digital occlusion setup in orthognathic surgery, but there are still some limitations. Further research is needed in terms of postoperative outcomes, doctor and patient acceptance, planning time and cost-effectiveness.

Keywords: Dental occlusion, computer simulation, orthognathic surgery, three-dimensional imaging, dental model


正颌外科手术是骨性错颌畸形的常用治疗方法,旨在实现面部美学改善和术后稳定咬合[1]。正颌手术的成功不仅取决于外科技术的进步,更取决于准确的术前规划[2]。锥束计算机断层扫描(cone-beam computed tomography,CBCT)等三维成像技术的进展催生了三维虚拟截骨、三维软组织预测、3D打印和三维叠加等一系列虚拟规划软件工具[3-5],对于制定更准确、安全、有效的治疗方案至关重要[6-7]。确定理想的牙齿咬合是规划正颌手术的关键步骤之一。然而,当前多数正颌外科虚拟规划方案仍结合传统石膏牙模来建立最终咬合[5],并通过数字化扫描转移至虚拟规划中。这些额外的中间步骤(印模和石膏牙模的制作、数字化扫描)增加了总体规划时间和成本[8],存在累积误差风险[9-11];此外,印模过程可能导致患者不适,引发呕吐反射、呼吸困难和焦虑等不良反应[12]。目前,采用三维数字模型取代石膏模型已成为一种趋势[13],基于数字牙模的咬合设置正不断进展,这一技术有可能克服传统石膏咬合的不足,使正颌外科虚拟规划流程更加高效、准确和舒适。本文对数字化咬合设置的研究进展综述如下。

1. 正颌外科数字牙科成像

数字化咬合设置依赖于详细的咬合面信息,因此获得精确的牙齿成像数据至关重要。在虚拟手术规划中,CBCT扫描是获取可视化颅骨结构的首选影像学方法[14],但CBCT成像无法提供准确的牙列或咬合关系细节信息[15-16]。此外,CBCT扫描常受到正畸金属托槽、牙齿修复材料、牙釉质的条纹伪影干扰[17]。因此,为了获得准确的牙列信息,需要采集额外的数字牙列图像,并以可靠方式集成到三维颅骨模型中[18]。在目前的工作流程中,数字牙列图像可通过间接或直接扫描获得。

间接扫描包括对印模或石膏牙模的表面扫描(光学扫描仪)[19]和体积扫描(CBCT扫描仪)[16]。间接光学扫描技术是将光源(激光或结构光)投射至印模或牙模,扫描软件对成像传感器捕捉的目标表面高分辨率图像信息进行处理,进而创建三维数字牙列模型[1120]。与口腔内直接扫描相比,间接光学扫描避免了因患者口腔内环境(如唾液、口腔运动、金属托槽)引起的扫描误差,其准确性在多项研究中得到验证[21-22],是目前数字牙科成像的标准程序[23-24]

与CBCT直接扫描相比,CBCT间接扫描避免了正畸托槽等条纹伪影的干扰[13],合理的阈值选择有助于进一步减少CBCT数据重建三角网格模型的相关误差[23],从而提高数字牙模的质量。近年研究表明,CBCT与光学设备扫描牙模的平均差异为0.052~0.064 mm,支持CBCT扫描用于临床相关的石膏牙模精确数字化[2325]。鉴于CBCT在临床实践中的日益普及,以及使用高精度光学扫描设备相关的额外成本支出,将CBCT用于石膏牙模数字化是口腔外间接光学扫描的潜在替代方案。然而,间接扫描法仍需要传统印模获取口腔内信息,难以避免患者不良反应和模型制作相关误差。

口腔内扫描是一项无需使用物理印模而直接捕获光学印模的数字成像技术,与间接扫描相比,具有增强患者舒适度、提高临床效率、减少存储需求、实时可视化、优化多方沟通等优点[26-27]。既往研究表明,其准确性受到环境光、扫描范围、扫描策略、患者口腔内环境等多因素的影响[28-30]。最近一项Meta分析比较了全牙列口内扫描和传统印模的体内准确性,支持在自然全牙列患者中用口内数字扫描作为传统藻酸盐印模的替代方案[31]。另一方面,正颌患者存在的部分无牙、佩戴正畸托槽等特殊情况可能影响全弓数字印模的准确性[32-33],尚需进一步体内研究。此外,操作人员的培训水平也会影响扫描的准确性[34-35]

2. 正颌外科数字化咬合设置的构建和分类

上、下牙列的咬合关系决定了上、下颌骨骨段的相对位置[19],是正颌外科术前规划的关键目标之一。准确的咬合设置对于避免术后严重咬合不稳定、不完全或过度骨骼矫正,特别是对于正颌外科手术优先治疗模式[36]至关重要。此外,术前咬合设置可用于制作咬合夹板指导术中操作,以及预测术后正畸治疗必要的牙齿移动[37]。数字牙模由缺乏碰撞约束的点云组成,并且在模型相互接触时缺乏对操作者的触觉反馈[38],从而给数字化咬合设置带来诸多不便和挑战。目前普遍做法是在传统石膏模型上手动设置咬合,并通过数字化扫描将最终咬合转移至规划软件中[39]。然而,这项操作增加了总体规划时间和成本[8]。此外,在模型设置期间骨骼和软组织变化的可视化受限,这对于复杂颅颌面畸形的治疗至关重要[7]。近年来,多个研究团队报道了数字牙模咬合设置的相关研究,大致可分为手动、半自动和全自动方法。

2.1. 手动咬合设置

计算机软件在三维环境中提供了6个自由度的牙模运动,操作者可根据视觉线索手动对齐数字模型,并结合视觉分析工具(如咬合热图、碰撞检测)获取牙齿接触的关键信息。利用口内扫描和商业软件Dolphin Imaging(Dolphin Imaging & Management Solutions公司,美国),Ho等[8]定义了骨性Ⅲ类错颌和面部不对称患者外科终末咬合的7步数字建立方案,以实现具有适当覆Inline graphic、覆盖、中线重合和双侧对称的Ⅰ类颌骨关系,将数字咬合和石膏牙模咬合进行叠加比较,两组平均差异为0.45 mm。在此基础上,Seo等[37]提出针对单侧唇腭裂正颌手术患者数字咬合的6步设置方案,其精度与传统设置方法相当(均方根偏差0.46 mm)。与错颌非腭裂者相比,该方案允许一定程度的牙齿中线差异(<1 mm),允许覆Inline graphic、覆盖低于正常值,并以第1磨牙作为横向牙弓调整的参考区域。针对数字模型缺乏触觉反馈的问题,Wu等[40]提出了一种基于复杂图形处理单元的触觉仿真框架来确定虚拟咬合,根据操作的运动学特征提供3种关键力(冲力、接触力和摩擦力)反馈。与物理牙模咬合相比,这种虚拟咬合方法的平均平移偏差为0.35~0.58 mm。

2.2. 半自动咬合设置

半自动咬合方法是在人工预处理基础上,由虚拟咬合工具计算出最佳咬合位置,或结合手动和自动调整以实现咬合优化。2006年,Pongrácz等[41]报道了一种通过在手动指示对应点的基础上对齐上、下牙模型以获得虚拟咬合的方法,但由于该方法未对上、下牙列间的接触行为建模,难以保证牙齿的不可穿透性。Nadjmi等[42]于2010年通过在Maxilim软件(Medicim公司,比利时)中集成碰撞检测算法改进了该方法,结果表明,手动咬合组与虚拟咬合组之间的平均差异为0.6 mm。IPS CaseDesigner软件(KLS Martin公司,德国)提供了一种虚拟咬合的半自动定义工具:首先对上、下牙模表面手动选择的接触对应点间各分配一个“弹簧连接”,随后从手动确定的起始位置开始,通过迭代最近点算法计算出对应点间最小距离,以获得稳定的咬合位置[43]。Baan等[44]利用IPS Case Designer软件评估了虚拟咬合设置的临床可行性,发现虚拟咬合组与传统咬合组组间差异比传统咬合组组内差异大0.20 mm,重复性良好,支持虚拟咬合工具的临床使用。Liu等[9]开发了一个更为复杂的咬合定义软件工具,支持手动和自动咬合调整,并结合碰撞热图、矢量投影视图等可视化分析技术改善操作者-计算机交互和推理支持,其虚拟设置咬合与手动设置咬合之间的中位误差为1.06 mm。

2.3. 自动咬合设置

自动咬合设置无需人工干预,根据临床标准自动模拟咬合重建过程。Chang等[45]开发了一种两步实现自动咬合牙模的方法,第一步是初始对齐,使用点匹配算法匹配上、下牙列曲线的特征点,使上、下牙模相对接近;第二步是最终对齐,使用基于曲面的迭代最小距离映射算法将初始对齐模型对齐,并微调至无碰撞的最大牙尖交错位。然而,这种方法需要密集的人工劳动来提取咬合面,计算效率较低,阻碍了其临床应用。Deng等[46]介绍了一种针对整块式上颌手术咬合重建的三阶段方法,包括提取感兴趣点,建立临床期望的中线-犬齿-磨牙关系,在临床期望和碰撞约束下迭代实现上、下牙模的最大接触。该方法最大运算时间在3 min内,与手动咬合的三维平均测量差异<0.2 mm[47]。此外,该研究团队近期报道了针对分块式Le Fort Ⅰ截骨术的终末咬合数字算法,基于切牙-尖牙-磨牙关系将3个Le Fort Ⅰ骨-牙节段分别连接到下颌牙弓,但该算法尚处于开发阶段,有待进一步临床验证[38]。针对部分无牙患者,Zhang等[48]提出利用对称牙的牙齿重建算法在部分无牙空间植入虚拟牙齿重建完整牙列,进而通过使用针对全牙列的咬合重建算法[49]将上、下牙列对齐至最大牙尖交错位。该算法在合成和真实的部分无牙模型中均得到满意的重建和咬合结果,最大平移偏差<0.5 mm。

3. 数字化咬合设置对颌骨定位的准确性研究

上述研究在咬合面水平上考察了数字咬合设置和传统咬合设置之间的差异,而部分研究进一步报道了数字咬合设置对正颌手术颌骨定位的影响。在虚拟规划基础上,利用计算机辅助设计(computer aided design,CAD)和计算机辅助制造(computer aided manufacturing,CAM)技术生成外科夹板,是将规划方案转移至术中最常用的方法[5]。Ho等[8]比较了传统咬合设置和数字咬合设置生成的CAD/CAM咬合夹板差异,结果仅简单分为临床“适合”和“不适合”,未发现差异有统计学意义。Awad等[43]比较了传统咬合设置和数字咬合设置对术后下颌骨定位的潜在差异,对25例正畸优先患者的模拟结果显示,两种方法的三维平均误差为0.14~0.72 mm,位于±2 mm的临床可接受范围内。Beek等[10]回顾了采用口内扫描数字咬合和传统咬合进行三维虚拟规划的手术准确性,两组在上颌前后、左右、上下平移以及滚动、偏转方面手术精度相当,数字咬合设置在俯仰精度中有明显优势 [组间差异(0.55±0.26)°,P=0.001]。Badiali等[11]对联合虚拟正畸-手术规划的准确性进行了前瞻性评估,结果显示,上、下颌骨再定位的准确率分别为75.3%和74%(误差范围2 mm内),上、下牙弓准确率分别为58.86%和51.53%(误差范围0.8 mm内),作者推测牙齿定位准确性较差可能与阈值设置降低和骨骼定位偏差的正畸补偿有关。

4. 数字化咬合设置存在的不足及潜在解决方案

数字化咬合设置是正颌外科虚拟手术规划的重要组成部分,但目前的数字化咬合设置方法还存在探索和优化的空间。对于手动和半自动咬合设置,咬合结果很大程度上依赖于操作者识别咬合平面的准确性以及适当的模型定位[43]。更重要的是,视觉上定义的咬合无法确定是否为最佳咬合[49]。通过在视觉分析系统中整合更多医学特定信息,如接触面积分布、咬合力和咬合平衡[19],有望进一步提高咬合设置的准确性。对于自动咬合设置,其灵活性相对不足,通常只针对满足特定条件的咬合设置,如全牙列或部分无牙、整块式或分块式上颌截骨术。因此,未来还需开发针对不同治疗模式(如正畸优先和手术优先)、复杂临床患者(如部分无牙伴严重不对称、对称性无牙)的自动咬合重建算法。近年来,人工智能(artificial intelligence,AI)以其模仿人类认知功能的能力迅速发展,强大的AI算法能够识别和揭示大量数据中的复杂模式,在正颌外科数字化咬合设置中具有潜在的应用价值,以提高该过程的敏捷性、准确性和可重复性[50]

5. 总结与展望

随着数字成像技术和医疗规划工具的加速发展,三维虚拟规划已取代传统二维规划,成为正颌外科的临床标准[11]。理想而稳定的咬合设置是正颌治疗成功的重要基础和结果[40],是术前虚拟规划过程中的关键步骤之一。牙科成像技术的进步促进了数字化咬合设置的发展。目前,光学间接扫描仍是获取数字牙模的标准程序,而口腔内扫描技术的出现进一步消除了对传统印模的需要,使全数字化规划流程成为可能。无论是手动、半自动还是自动数字咬合设置,均显示出良好的准确性和可重复性,但也存在一定不足和进一步发展的潜力。此外,还需进一步评估数字化咬合设置与传统咬合设置在临床准确性、临床医师和患者接受度、总体规划时间和成本效益等方面的差异。未来针对多种复杂患者的大样本前瞻性临床试验,将有助于制定合理的临床决策。

利益冲突 在课题研究和文章撰写过程中不存在利益冲突;经费支持没有影响文章观点

作者贡献声明 李磊:综述构思、文献查阅及文章撰写;牛峰:审校并修改论文

Funding Statement

中国医学科学院整形外科医院院所基金(YS202008)

Foundation item: Foundation of Plastic Surgery Hospital of Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences (YS202008)

References

  • 1.Naran S, Steinbacher DM, Taylor JA Current concepts in orthognathic surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018;141(6):925e–936e. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000004438. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Klein KP, Kaban LB, Masoud MI Orthognathic surgery and orthodontics: Inadequate planning leading to complications or unfavorable results. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am. 2020;32(1):71–82. doi: 10.1016/j.coms.2019.08.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Ter Horst R, van Weert H, Loonen T, et al Three-dimensional virtual planning in mandibular advancement surgery: Soft tissue prediction based on deep learning. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2021;49(9):775–782. doi: 10.1016/j.jcms.2021.04.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.McAllister P, Watson M, Burke E A cost-effective, in-house, positioning and cutting guide system for orthognathic surgery. J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2018;17(1):112–114. doi: 10.1007/s12663-017-1067-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Lo LJ, Niu LS, Liao CH, et al A novel CAD/CAM composite occlusal splint for intraoperative verification in single-splint two-jaw orthognathic surgery. Biomed J. 2021;44(3):353–362. doi: 10.1016/j.bj.2020.03.004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Ho CT, Denadai R, Lai HC, et al Computer-aided planning in orthognathic surgery: A comparative study with the establishment of burstone analysis-derived 3D norms. J Clin Med. 2019;8(12):2106. doi: 10.3390/jcm8122106. doi: 10.3390/jcm8122106. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Goulart ME, Biegelmeyer TC, Moreira-Souza L, et al What is the accuracy of the surgical guide in the planning of orthognathic surgeries? A systematic review. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2022;27(2):e125–e134. doi: 10.4317/medoral.25042. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Ho CT, Lin HH, Lo LJ Intraoral scanning and setting up the digital final occlusion in three-dimensional planning of orthognathic surgery: Its comparison with the dental model approach. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019;143(5):1027e–1036e. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000005556. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Liu XJ, Li QQ, Zhang Z, et al Virtual occlusal definition for orthognathic surgery. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016;45(3):406–411. doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2015.07.022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Beek DM, Baan F, Liebregts J, et al. Surgical accuracy in 3D planned bimaxillary osteotomies: intraoral scans and plaster casts as digital dentition models. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2022, 51(7): 922-928.
  • 11.Badiali G, Costabile E, Lovero E, et al. Virtual orthodontic surgical planning to improve the accuracy of the surgery-first approach: A prospective evaluation. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2019;77(10):2104–2115. doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2021.11.016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Glisic O, Hoejbjerre L, Sonnesen L A comparison of patient experience, chair-side time, accuracy of dental arch measurements and costs of acquisition of dental models. Angle Orthod. 2019;89(6):868–875. doi: 10.2319/020619-84.1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Hou X, Xu X, Zhao M, et al An overview of three-dimensional imaging devices in dentistry. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2022;34(8):1179–1196. doi: 10.1111/jerd.12955. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Ajmera DH, Hsung RT, Singh P, et al Three-dimensional assessment of facial asymmetry in Class Ⅲ subjects. Part 1:a retrospective study evaluating postsurgical outcomes. Clin Oral Investig. 2022;26(7):4947–4966. doi: 10.1007/s00784-022-04463-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Ye J, Wang S, Wang Z, et al. Comparison of the dimensional and morphological accuracy of three-dimensional digital dental casts digitized using different methods. Odontology, 2022. doi: 10.1007/s10266-022-00736-2.
  • 16.Rangel FA, Maal TJJ, de Koning MJJ, et al Integration of digital dental casts in cone beam computed tomography scans-a clinical validation study. Clin Oral Investig. 2018;22(3):1215–1222. doi: 10.1007/s00784-017-2203-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Baan F, Bruggink R, Nijsink J, et al Fusion of intra-oral scans in cone-beam computed tomography scans. Clin Oral Investig. 2021;25(1):77–85. doi: 10.1007/s00784-020-03336-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Zou B, Kim JH, Kim SH, et al Accuracy of a surface-based fusion method when integrating digital models and the cone beam computed tomography scans with metal artifacts. Sci Rep. 2022;12(1):8034. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-11677-9. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-11677-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Liao YF, Atipatyakul P, Chen YH, et al Skeletal stability after bimaxillary surgery with surgery-first approach for class Ⅲ asymmetry is not related to virtual surgical occlusal contact. Clin Oral Investig. 2022;26(7):4935–4945. doi: 10.1007/s00784-022-04462-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Elnagar MH, Aronovich S, Kusnoto B Digital workflow for combined orthodontics and orthognathic surgery. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am. 2020;32(1):1–14. doi: 10.1016/j.coms.2019.08.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.De Luca Canto G, Pachêco-Pereira C, Lagravere MO, et al Intra-arch dimensional measurement validity of laser-scanned digital dental models compared with the original plaster models: a systematic review. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2015;18(2):65–76. doi: 10.1111/ocr.12068. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Emir F, Ayyıldız S Evaluation of the trueness and precision of eight extraoral laboratory scanners with a complete-arch model: a three-dimensional analysis. J Prosthodont Res. 2019;63(4):434–439. doi: 10.1016/j.jpor.2019.03.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Apostolakis D, Michelinakis G, Kourakis G, et al Accuracy of triangular meshes of stone models created from DICOM cone beam CT data. Int J Implant Dent. 2019;5(1):20. doi: 10.1186/s40729-019-0171-9. doi: 10.1186/s40729-019-0171-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Pagano S, Moretti M, Marsili R, et al Evaluation of the accuracy of four digital methods by linear and volumetric analysis of dental impressions. Materials (Basel) 2019;12(12):1958. doi: 10.3390/ma12121958. doi: 10.3390/ma12121958. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Becker K, Schmücker U, Schwarz F, et al Accuracy and eligibility of CBCT to digitize dental plaster casts. Clin Oral Investig. 2018;22(4):1817–1823. doi: 10.1007/s00784-017-2277-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Suese K Progress in digital dentistry: The practical use of intraoral scanners. Dent Mater J. 2020;39(1):52–56. doi: 10.4012/dmj.2019-224. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Sfondrini MF, Gandini P, Malfatto M, et al Computerized casts for orthodontic purpose using powder-free intraoral scanners: accuracy, execution time, and patient feedback. Biomed Res Int. 2018;2018:4103232. doi: 10.1155/2018/4103232. doi: 10.1155/2018/4103232. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Rotar RN, Faur AB, Pop D, et al Scanning distance influence on the intraoral scanning accuracy-an in vitro study. Materials (Basel) 2022;15(9):3061. doi: 10.3390/ma15093061. doi: 10.3390/ma15093061. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Wesemann C, Kienbaum H, Thun M, et al. Does ambient light affect the accuracy and scanning time of intraoral scans? J Prosthet Dent, 2021, 125(6): 924-931.
  • 30.Amornvit P, Rokaya D, Sanohkan S Comparison of accuracy of current ten intraoral scanners. Biomed Res Int. 2021;2021:2673040. doi: 10.1155/2021/2673040. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Kong L, Li Y, Liu Z Digital versus conventional full-arch impressions in linear and 3D accuracy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of in vivo studies. Clin Oral Investig. 2022;26(9):5625–5642. doi: 10.1007/s00784-022-04607-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Kim YK, Kim SH, Choi TH, et al Accuracy of intraoral scan images in full arch with orthodontic brackets: a retrospective in vivo study. Clin Oral Investig. 2021;25(8):4861–4869. doi: 10.1007/s00784-021-03792-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Lee JH, Yun JH, Han JS, et al Repeatability of intraoral scanners for complete arch scan of partially edentulous dentitions: An in vitro study. J Clin Med. 2019;8(8):1187. doi: 10.3390/jcm8081187. doi: 10.3390/jcm8081187. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Zarauz C, Sailer I, Pitta J, et al Influence of age and scanning system on the learning curve of experienced and novel intraoral scanner operators: A multi-centric clinical trial. J Dent. 2021;115:103860. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2021.103860. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2021.103860. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Róth I, Czigola A, Joós-Kovács GL, et al Learning curve of digital intraoral scanning-an in vivo study. BMC Oral Health. 2020;20(1):287. doi: 10.1186/s12903-020-01278-1. doi: 10.1186/s12903-020-01278-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Liao YF, Lo SH Surgical occlusion setup in correction of skeletal class Ⅲ deformity using surgery-first approach: Guidelines, characteristics and accuracy. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1):11673. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-30124-2. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-30124-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Seo HJ, Denadai R, Pai BC, et al Digital occlusion setup is quantitatively comparable with the conventional dental model approach: Characteristics and guidelines for orthognathic surgery in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate. Ann Plast Surg. 2020;85(2):171–179. doi: 10.1097/SAP.0000000000002079. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Frick CJ, Deng HH, English JD, et al Clinical feasibility evaluation of digital dental articulation for three-piece maxillary orthognathic surgery: a proof-of-concept study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2022;51(8):1043–1049. doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2022.02.001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Ji H, Du W, Xu C, et al Computer-assisted osteotomy guides and pre-bent titanium plates improve the planning for correction of facial asymmetry. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2019;48(8):1043–1050. doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2019.01.026. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Wu W, Chen H, Cen Y, et al Haptic simulation framework for determining virtual dental occlusion. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2017;12(4):595–606. doi: 10.1007/s11548-016-1475-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Pongrácz F, Bárdosi Z Dentition planning with image-based occlusion analysis. International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery. 2006;1(3):149–156. doi: 10.1007/s11548-006-0052-6. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Nadjmi N, Mollemans W, Daelemans A, et al Virtual occlusion in planning orthognathic surgical procedures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010;39(5):457–462. doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2010.02.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Awad D, Häfner A, Reinert S, et al Plaster casts vs. intraoral scans:Do different methods of determining the final occlusion affect the simulated outcome in orthognathic surgery? J Pers Med. 2022;12(8):1288. doi: 10.3390/jpm12081288. doi: 10.3390/jpm12081288. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Baan F, Van Meggelen EM, Verhulst AC, et al Virtual occlusion in orthognathic surgery. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2021;50(9):1219–1225. doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2020.12.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Chang YB, Xia JJ, Gateno J, et al An automatic and robust algorithm of reestablishment of digital dental occlusion. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2010;29(9):1652–1663. doi: 10.1109/TMI.2010.2049526. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Deng H, Yuan P, Wong S, et al An automatic approach to establish clinically desired final dental occlusion for one-piece maxillary orthognathic surgery. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020;15(11):1763–1773. doi: 10.1007/s11548-020-02125-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Wong S, Deng H, Gateno J, et al Clinical evaluation of digital dental articulation for one-piece maxillary surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surge. 2020;78(5):799–805. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2019.12.021. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Zhang J, Xia JJ, Li J, et al Reconstruction-based digital dental occlusion of the partially edentulous dentition. IEEE J Biomed Health Inform. 2017;21(1):201–210. doi: 10.1109/JBHI.2015.2500191. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Chang YB, Xia JJ, Gateno J, et al In vitro evaluation of new approach to digital dental model articulation. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012;70(4):952–962. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2011.02.109. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Khosravi-Kamrani P, Qiao X, Zanardi G, et al A machine learning approach to determine the prognosis of patients with Class Ⅲ malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2022;161(1):e1–e11. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2021.06.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Chinese Journal of Reparative and Reconstructive Surgery are provided here courtesy of Sichuan University

RESOURCES