Cargando…

Fibula Graft Cutting Devices: Are 3D-Printed Cutting Guides More Precise than a Universal, Reusable Osteotomy Jig?

Individual cutting guides for the reconstruction of lower jaw defects with fibular grafts are often used. However, the application of these osteotomy tools is costly and time intensive. The aim of this study was to compare the precision of osteotomies using a 3D-printed guide with those using a univ...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Meyer, Simon, Hirsch, Jan-Michaél, Leiggener, Christoph S., Msallem, Bilal, Sigron, Guido R., Kunz, Christoph, Thieringer, Florian M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7766794/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33419329
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm9124119
_version_ 1783628804067950592
author Meyer, Simon
Hirsch, Jan-Michaél
Leiggener, Christoph S.
Msallem, Bilal
Sigron, Guido R.
Kunz, Christoph
Thieringer, Florian M.
author_facet Meyer, Simon
Hirsch, Jan-Michaél
Leiggener, Christoph S.
Msallem, Bilal
Sigron, Guido R.
Kunz, Christoph
Thieringer, Florian M.
author_sort Meyer, Simon
collection PubMed
description Individual cutting guides for the reconstruction of lower jaw defects with fibular grafts are often used. However, the application of these osteotomy tools is costly and time intensive. The aim of this study was to compare the precision of osteotomies using a 3D-printed guide with those using a universal, reusable, and more cost-efficient Multi-Use Cutting Jig (MUC-Jig). In this non-blinded experimental study, 10 cranio-maxillofacial surgeons performed four graft removals each in a randomized order using the same osteotomy angle, both proximally (sagittal cut) and distally (coronal cut), of a graft (45°, 30°, 15°, or 0°), first with the MUC-Jig then with the 3D-printed cutting guide. The 40 fibula transplants (Tx) of each method (n = 80) were then analyzed concerning their Tx length and osteotomy angles and compared to the original planning data. Furthermore, the surgeons’ subjective perception and the duration of the two procedures were analyzed. The mean relative length and mean relative angle deviation between the MUC-Jig (−0.08 ± 1.12 mm; −0.69° ± 3.15°) and the template (0.22 ± 0.90 mm; 0.36° ± 2.56°) group differed significantly (p = 0.002; p = < 0.001), but the absolute deviations did not (p = 0.206; p = 0.980). Consequently, clinically comparable osteotomy results can be achieved with both methods, but from an economic point of view the MUC-Jig is a more cost-efficient solution.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7766794
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-77667942020-12-28 Fibula Graft Cutting Devices: Are 3D-Printed Cutting Guides More Precise than a Universal, Reusable Osteotomy Jig? Meyer, Simon Hirsch, Jan-Michaél Leiggener, Christoph S. Msallem, Bilal Sigron, Guido R. Kunz, Christoph Thieringer, Florian M. J Clin Med Article Individual cutting guides for the reconstruction of lower jaw defects with fibular grafts are often used. However, the application of these osteotomy tools is costly and time intensive. The aim of this study was to compare the precision of osteotomies using a 3D-printed guide with those using a universal, reusable, and more cost-efficient Multi-Use Cutting Jig (MUC-Jig). In this non-blinded experimental study, 10 cranio-maxillofacial surgeons performed four graft removals each in a randomized order using the same osteotomy angle, both proximally (sagittal cut) and distally (coronal cut), of a graft (45°, 30°, 15°, or 0°), first with the MUC-Jig then with the 3D-printed cutting guide. The 40 fibula transplants (Tx) of each method (n = 80) were then analyzed concerning their Tx length and osteotomy angles and compared to the original planning data. Furthermore, the surgeons’ subjective perception and the duration of the two procedures were analyzed. The mean relative length and mean relative angle deviation between the MUC-Jig (−0.08 ± 1.12 mm; −0.69° ± 3.15°) and the template (0.22 ± 0.90 mm; 0.36° ± 2.56°) group differed significantly (p = 0.002; p = < 0.001), but the absolute deviations did not (p = 0.206; p = 0.980). Consequently, clinically comparable osteotomy results can be achieved with both methods, but from an economic point of view the MUC-Jig is a more cost-efficient solution. MDPI 2020-12-20 /pmc/articles/PMC7766794/ /pubmed/33419329 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm9124119 Text en © 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Meyer, Simon
Hirsch, Jan-Michaél
Leiggener, Christoph S.
Msallem, Bilal
Sigron, Guido R.
Kunz, Christoph
Thieringer, Florian M.
Fibula Graft Cutting Devices: Are 3D-Printed Cutting Guides More Precise than a Universal, Reusable Osteotomy Jig?
title Fibula Graft Cutting Devices: Are 3D-Printed Cutting Guides More Precise than a Universal, Reusable Osteotomy Jig?
title_full Fibula Graft Cutting Devices: Are 3D-Printed Cutting Guides More Precise than a Universal, Reusable Osteotomy Jig?
title_fullStr Fibula Graft Cutting Devices: Are 3D-Printed Cutting Guides More Precise than a Universal, Reusable Osteotomy Jig?
title_full_unstemmed Fibula Graft Cutting Devices: Are 3D-Printed Cutting Guides More Precise than a Universal, Reusable Osteotomy Jig?
title_short Fibula Graft Cutting Devices: Are 3D-Printed Cutting Guides More Precise than a Universal, Reusable Osteotomy Jig?
title_sort fibula graft cutting devices: are 3d-printed cutting guides more precise than a universal, reusable osteotomy jig?
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7766794/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33419329
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm9124119
work_keys_str_mv AT meyersimon fibulagraftcuttingdevicesare3dprintedcuttingguidesmoreprecisethanauniversalreusableosteotomyjig
AT hirschjanmichael fibulagraftcuttingdevicesare3dprintedcuttingguidesmoreprecisethanauniversalreusableosteotomyjig
AT leiggenerchristophs fibulagraftcuttingdevicesare3dprintedcuttingguidesmoreprecisethanauniversalreusableosteotomyjig
AT msallembilal fibulagraftcuttingdevicesare3dprintedcuttingguidesmoreprecisethanauniversalreusableosteotomyjig
AT sigronguidor fibulagraftcuttingdevicesare3dprintedcuttingguidesmoreprecisethanauniversalreusableosteotomyjig
AT kunzchristoph fibulagraftcuttingdevicesare3dprintedcuttingguidesmoreprecisethanauniversalreusableosteotomyjig
AT thieringerflorianm fibulagraftcuttingdevicesare3dprintedcuttingguidesmoreprecisethanauniversalreusableosteotomyjig