Computer Planning

and Intraoperative
Navigat ion in Cr anioMaxillofacial Surgery
R. Bryan Bell, DDS, MD, FACS
KEYWORDS

Complex congenital, developmental, and acquired

deformities of the cranio-maxillofacial skeleton are
currently managed by reestablishing facial
symmetry and projection through restoration of
known horizontal, vertical, and sagittal buttresses
using craniofacial techniques that have been
developed and refined during the past 30 years.1,2
Advances in diagnostic imaging, rigid internal fixation, and microvascular free tissue transfer have
profoundly affected the predictability in which
todays surgeons are able to restore patients to
form and function. Despite notable successes,
however, problems remain with regard to reestablishing facial symmetry, consistently restoring
orbital volume, and accurately repositioning skeletal or composite tissue constructs into optimal
anteroposterior, vertical, and sagittal relationships. These relationships should ideally result in
favorable facial proportions and allow for successful implant-supported prosthetic rehabilitation.
Some patients with complex problems undergo
surgical treatment with suboptimal results that are
apparent to both patient and clinician, despite
well-planned operations by experienced surgeons.
There are several factors that contribute to poor
outcomes, including the surgeons reliance on
2-dimensional (2-D) imaging for treatment planning
on a 3-dimensional (3-D) problem; difficulty in assessing the intraoperative position, projection, and
symmetry of repositioned or deformed skeletal
anatomy; poor visualization of deep skeletal
contours involving the orbit, mandibular condyle,

and skull base; variability in the anteroposterior,

vertical, and sagittal jaw and tooth position relative
to each other and the skull base; and variations in
head position and craniofacial development, as
well as disproportionate growth.
Recently, surgeons have begun to adopt
computer-aided design and computer aided
modeling (CAD/CAM) softwareinitially engineered for applications in neurosurgery and radiation therapyto assist in the planning and
implementation of complex cranio-maxillofacial
(CMF) procedures.3 CAD/CAM software enables
the clinician to import 2-D computed tomography
(CT) data in DICOM format (Digital Imaging and
Communications in Medicine) to a computer
work station and generate an accurate 3-D representation of the skeletal and soft tissue anatomy.
The data set can then be used to additively manufacture a stereolithographic model or it can be
manipulated by segmentation, reflection, or insertion of specific anatomic regions for purposes of
treatment planning.
Computer-aided CMF surgery can be divided
into three main categories: (1) computer-aided
presurgical planning; (2) intraoperative navigation;
and (3) intraoperative CT/MRI imaging (Fig. 1).
Presurgical planning software allows the surgeon
to import CT data to provide a 3-D rendering of
the skull for purposes of visualization, orientation,
and diagnosis; analysis with 2-D and 3-D linear
and volumetric measurements; manipulations or
surgical simulation by mirroring, segmentation, or

Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Service, Legacy Emanuel Hospital and Health Center, Head and Neck Surgical
Associates, Oregon Health & Science University, 1849 NW Kearney, Suite 300, Portland, OR 97209, USA
E-mail address: [email protected]
Oral Maxillofacial Surg Clin N Am 22 (2010) 135156
doi:10.1016/j.coms.2009.10.010
1042-3699/10/$ see front matter 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

oralmaxsurgery.theclinics.com

 Cranio-maxillofacial surgery  Computer planning

 Intraoperative navigation  Computer-assisted surgery

136

Bell

Fig. 1. Schematic describing computer evaluation and

manipulation for treatment planning, intraoperative
navigation for treatment implementation, and intraoperative or postoperative imaging for confirmation of
accurate treatment.

and enabling intraoperative bone graft contouring

for precise inset into the patient at the time of
surgery.12 Craniofacial/orthognathic surgical planning is enhanced through stereolithographic
modeling by giving the surgeon a tactile, 3-D
representation of pitch, roll, and yaw; through
vector planning in distraction osteogenesis; and
as an aid to osteotomy design.13,14 Unfortunately,
modeling alone is limited by the fact that there is
inadequate precision of the occlusal surfaces so
as to eliminate the need for plaster casts or to
provide a method for implementing the surgical
plan in the patient; performing osteotomies is
laborious; and there is no predictable method,
when used alone, that the surgical plan as performed on the model can be transferred to the
patient.

COMPUTER-ASSISTED SURGICAL
SIMULATION
insertion of anatomic structures; and creation of
a planning model or custom implant. The virtual
data can then be imported into a navigation
system (frameless stereotaxy) that is used to
provide guidance for the accurate and safe placement of hardware or bone grafts, movement of
bone segments, resection of tumor, and/or osteotomy design. Finally, newly designed, mobile intraoperative CT scanners can be used to confirm the
accuracy of the reconstruction before the patient
leaves the operating room.

STEREOLITHOGRAPHIC MODELS
Using CT data sets to construct a stereolithographic model is a useful technique for evaluating
and treatment planning complex facial deformities
that was developed and popularized in the later
part of the twentieth century.49 As CT imaging
has become more resolute, the quality of the additively manufactured model has likewise improved,
resulting in a high-quality, precise representation
of the patients underlying skeletal anatomy. Two
decades of experience has refined the indications
for obtaining these models. In the authors opinion,
they are most useful as an adjunct to maxillomandibular reconstruction, orbital reconstruction,
and complex craniofacial/orthognathic surgery,
primarily facial asymmetry.
Stereolithographic models are useful in maxillomandibular reconstruction as a guide to plate
adaptation, jaw contouring, anteroposterior jaw
positioning, and as an aid to constructing
patient-specific custom implants.10,11 They are
equally as efficacious in orbital reconstruction by
facilitating the planning of ideal osteotomy
designs, allowing preoperative plate adaptation,

Computer planning systems have been developed

for use in the craniofacial skeleton that provide
individualized, 3-D manipulation of CT datasets,1518 which can then be combined with intraoperative navigation to facilitate accurate
implementation of the virtual plan.19,20 Virtual
bone-based reconstruction can be performed
through mirror imaging the opposite (presumably
unaffected) side; by segmentation and virtual
manipulation of deformed anatomic regions; or
by inserting new anatomic structures into
acquired, developmental, or congenital defects.
Specifically, in maxillo-mandibular reconstruction,
for example, mandibular contours can be virtually
manipulated to accommodate for vertical, sagittal,
and horizontal discrepancies, and the stereolithographic model can then be additively manufactured based on the virtual reconstruction.
Numerous CAD/CAM programs are currently
commercially available for applications in craniofacial surgery, orthognathic surgery, head and neck
reconstructive surgery, and dental implantology
(Box 1). In the authors opinion, the ability to
back convert data from their proprietary
language to the standard DICOM format, so that
digital reconstruction may then be imported into
a surgical navigation system, is a distinct advantage of some systems over others. This also allows
clinicians to transfer data back and forth for
purposes of treatment planning or teaching. For
example, iPlan and Voxim are both excellent software programs, but they do not offer the ability to
be back converted into DICOM format, which
can be understood by navigation systems other
than their proprietary counterparts (BrianLab and
Voxim, respectively). Analyze is an excellent

Computer Planning in Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery

Box 1
Commercially available CAD/CAM programs
Amira (Berlin, Germany)
Analyze (AnalyzeDirect, Lenexa, Ann Arbor, MI)
Intellect Cranial Navigation System (Stryker,
Freiburg, Germany)
iPlan (BrainLab, Westchester, IL)
Maxilim (Medicim, Bruges, Belgium)
MIMICS (Materialise, Leuven, Belgium)
Surgi Case CMF (Materialise, Leuven, Belgium)
Sim Plant OMS (Materialise Dental, Leuven,
Belgium)
Voxim (IVS Solutions, Chemnitz, Germany)
3dMD (Atlanta, GA)

research tool, but not very useful for routine clinical

use. For this reason, the author prefers to use
Surgi Case CMF (Materialise, Leuven, Belgium)
for maxillo-mandibular reconstruction; and Simplant OMS (Materialise Dental, Ann Arbor, MI) for
orthognathic surgery, both of which can then be
back converted into the Intellect Cranial Navigation System (Stryker, Freiburg, Germany) for intraoperative guidance. The virtual reconstructions
can be milled into a stereolithographic model,
and a custom implant or surgical splint can be
constructed and the final result is confirmed with
intraoperative imaging.

INTRAOPERATIVE NAVIGATION
Intraoperative navigation is comparable to GPS
systems commonly used in automobiles and is
composed of three primary components: a localizer, which is analogous to a satellite in space; an

instrument or surgical probe, which represents

the track waves emitted by the GPS unit in the
vehicle; and a CT scan data set that is analogous
to a road map (Fig. 2). Intraoperative navigation
systems were initially developed for use in neurosurgery21,22 and are now commonly used in endoscopic sinus surgery.23,24 Recently, several
computer-aided surgical navigation systems
became commercially available for use in
cranio-maxillofacial surgery as well (Box 2).2528
All of these frameless stereotaxy systems allow
precise location of an anatomic landmark or
implant with a margin of error that is typically
less than 1 to 2 mm.29,30
Early navigation systems, such as Instatrak,
relied on electromagnetic fields, superimposed
over the operative site, to achieve satellite
tracking of the surgical instrument. The position
of the tracking probe was determined by analyzing
the effect of its ferromagnetic parts on the
magnetic field. The problem with these systems
lies in the variable stability of the magnetic field,
such as that which can occur from metallic instruments. More contemporary navigation systems
use optical instrument-based designs that rely on
detection of light-emitting diodes (LEDs) by
infrared cameras.
There are two types of commercially available
optical instrumentbased systems: active and
passive. Active systems have battery-powered
LEDs attached to the instrument probes that can
be used anyplace in the body with a high degree
of accuracy. Passive systems, on the other hand,
replace the active light sources with reflectors,
which are then illuminated by infrared flashes.
The principal advantage of passive systems is
that there is no need for electrical wires or
batteries; thus, the handheld instrument is potentially lighter and more user friendly. The
Fig. 2. Components of a surgical navigation system. Intraoperative navigation is
comparable to GPS systems commonly
used in automobiles and is composed of
three primary components: A localizer,
which is analogous to a satellite in space;
an instrument or surgical probe, which
represents the track waves emitted by
the GPS unit in the vehicle; and a CT
scan data set that is analogous to
a road map.

137

138

Bell

Box 2
Commercially available navigation systems

to conclude that computer-aided CMF surgery is

indicated in the circumstances listed in Box 3.

Instatrak (General Electric Health Care, Buckinghamshire, UK)

Orbital Reconstruction

Stealth Station (Medtronic-Xomed, Jacksonville, FL)

Stryker Navigation System (Stryker-Leibinger,
Kalamazoo, MI)
Vector Vision (BrainLab, Westchester, IL)
VoNaviX (IVS Solutions, Chemnitz, Germany)

disadvantage of passive systems is that artificial

light sources may interfere with tracking, and
they cannot be used within an enclosed cavity.
The position of the instrument relative to the
patient is determined by the computer using the
local rigid body concept, which states that an
object must have at least three fixed reference
elements that span the coordinate system of the
object in question.3 The process of correlating
the anatomic references to the digitalized data
set constitutes the registration process. There
are two types of registration: invasive and noninvasive. Invasive registration involves the placement
of fixed markers that are secured to the patients
head with screws via small incisions in the scalp
(or alternatively to the occlusion using a custom
splint). The primary disadvantage of these fixed
markers is the need for operative insertion and
the need to immobilize the patients head by attaching it to a Mayfield headset. Noninvasive
registration methods, however, do not require
head immobilization and can be performed by
applying adhesive skin markers, either individually
at various points on the face, or by using
a commercially available LED mask. This technique is quick, simple, and accurate. Alternatively,
a markerless technique called surface matching
can be used in which a series of points on the face
are scanned and correlated with the CT data set.
The primary disadvantage of this approach is
that it is time consuming. The author prefers noninvasive, mask registration whenever possible to
avoid the use of a Mayfield head frame. Unfortunately, if a coronal flap is required, the LED mask
cannot be used and either surface matching is
required or the patient must be placed into a Mayfield and the registration completed using fixed
skull markers.
Numerous clinical applications for these
computer-based technologies are possible and
will continue to be explored.3135 More than
a decade of experience has led most surgeons

High-velocity injuries often result in a shattered

orbit with large volumetric increases internally,
massive herniation of periorbital contents into the
surrounding anatomic spaces, and cranial neuropathies. Although advances in craniomaxillofacial
surgical approaches and biologic materials have
improved our ability to more predictably restore
these patients to form and function, a significant
number of patients will still require revisional surgery
despite the best efforts of an experienced surgeon.36
When the entire orbit is disrupted and there are no
posterior bony landmarks to guide in the reconstruction, accurate positioning of bone grafts or mesh
plates becomes problematic. There is difficulty in establishing proper orbital contour, volume, and
ethmoidal or antral bulge projection, as well as risk
of encroachment upon the orbital apex and optic
nerve (Fig. 3). Recently, preformed orbital mesh
plates based on a composite of normal orbital CT
data sets were developed and made commercially
available for use in complex orbital trauma (Synthes,
Paoli, PA) (Fig. 4). Presurgical planning using stereolithographic models to establish proper plate
contour, as well as intraoperative navigation to
ensure accurate and safe positioning of the plate in
a poorly visualized anatomic region affords even
the experienced surgeon greater confidence and
predictability in the deep orbit (Figs. 5 and 6).3740
In addition to navigating the orbital apex,
computerized planning and pre-bent orbital mesh
has the potential to predictably restore the difficult-to-access posterior medial bulge (ethmoidal
bulge) region, also known as the key area, as
well as the posterior orbital slope (antral bulge).
Recently, Metzger and colleagues39 described

Box 3
Indications for computer-sided craniomaxillofacial surgery
Foreign body removal36
Complex orbital reconstruction
Maxillo-mandibular reconstruction
Cranial reconstruction
Head and neck tumor resection
Skull base surgery
Complex craniofacial/orthognathic surgery
Temporomandibular joint surgery
Dental and craniofacial implantology

Computer Planning in Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery

Fig. 3. Factors leading to difficulty identifying and accurately reconstructing orbital bony landmarks. (A) Sagittal
CT scan demonstrating the normal ascending slope of the posterior orbit (left) and the common surgical error
(right) of inadequate restoration of the height of the posterior orbit. (B) Axial CT scan demonstrating the normal
postero-medial orbital bulge (left, red), and the common surgical error (right, red) or inadequate restoration of
the postero-medial bulge. The green line represents optimal orbital contour.

a semiautomatic procedure for individual preforming of titanium meshes for orbital fractures. By
using CT scan data, the topography of the orbital
floor and wall structures can be recalculated. After

Fig. 4. Preformed orbital mesh plates based on

a composite of normal orbital CT data sets are now
commercially available for use in complex orbital
trauma.

mirroring the unaffected side onto the affected

side, the defect can be reconstructed virtually.
Data of the individual virtual model of the orbital
cavity are then sent to a template machine that
reproduces the surface of the orbital floor and
medial walls. A titanium mesh can then be
adjusted preoperatively, or custom implant constructed, for exact 3-D reconstruction. It is then
placed using intraoperative navigation to ensure
accurate position within the orbit.
At the time of surgery, patients are typically approached via a transconjunctival incision alone or
combined with an upper blepharoplasty or coronal
approach depending on the clinical scenario. The
internal orbit is reconstructed with the previously
contoured titanium orbital plate or bone grafts. The
external orbital frame is reduced or repositioned
and stabilized using 1.3-mm and/or 1.5-mm titanium
plates and screws (Stryker, Kalamazoo, MI; Synthes). Intraoperative navigation is then used to
assess the accuracy of the restored internal and
external orbital anatomy (Surgical Tool Navigation
System, Stryker Navigation, Kalamazoo, MI).
Intraoperative navigation is performed by means
of frameless stereotaxy with three infrared
cameras controlling the pointer via integrated
LEDs. The patients position is identified with
a digital reference frame that is fixed to an adhesive mask. The mask has a total of 31 LEDs that
it uses for registration. A minimum of 21 of the
LEDs are required to achieve optimal registration
accuracy. Various points on the virtual image at
the workstation and the patient are matched and
compared with anatomic landmarks. An acceptable margin of error is defined as less than
1 mm. If a 1-mm margin of error is not obtained,
then the registration is made using a fixed skeletal
reference tool. Proper position of the bony

139

140

Bell

Fig. 5. A 35-year-old male involved in motor vehicle collision sustaining displaced right orbito-zygomaticomaxillary complex fracture and left orbital blowout fracture. (A) Preoperative appearance with LED mask applied. (B)
Preoperative axial, coronal, sagittal, CT scans with 3-D reconstructions demonstrating medially displaced orbitozygomaticomaxillary complex fracture with orbital displacement and increased orbital volume. (C) Intraoperative
view following open reduction and internal fixation of the ZMC component with reconstruction of the orbital
floor. (D) Intraoperative view of fixation at the maxillary buttress. (E) Virtual reconstruction by mirror imaging
of the unaffected side with intraoperative navigation used to confirm accurate reduction of the malar buttress
and restoration of orbital volume. (F) Postoperative 3D reconstruction. (G) Postoperative coronal CT scan demonstrating restoration of orbital volume with titanium mesh. (H) Postoperative appearance. (I) Postoperative
appearance.

Computer Planning in Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery

Fig. 6. A 21-year-old male involved in a high-speed motor vehicle collision sustaining severely disrupted frontobasilar skull fractures involving the orbit and naso-orbital-ethmoidal complex resulting in significant increase in
orbital volume and orbital apex syndrome. (A) Initial preoperative axial CT scan demonstrating increased orbital
volume with complete disruption of posterio-medial skeletal landmarks. (B) Initial preoperative coronal CT scan
demonstrating increased orbital volume with disruption of the entire orbit, herniation of periorbital contents
and skull base involvement. (C) Postoperative coronal CT scan following initial orbital repair demonstrating inaccurate plate placement posterior to the equator of the globe, note increased orbital volume. (D) Postoperative
axial CT scan following initial orbital repair demonstrating inadequate restoration of the postero-medial orbital
bulge and significantly increased orbital volume. (E) Calvarial bone graft construct. (F) Bone graft try-in using
stereolithographic model. (G) Bone graft inset into patient. (H) Intraoperative navigation images demonstrating
increased, overcorrected globe position. (I) Intraoperative navigation demonstrating accurate placement of bone
graft construct along the medial orbital wall based upon a mirror image (red) of the opposite (unaffected) side.
(J) Intraoperative navigation demonstrating accurate placement of bone graft construct posterior to the equator
of the globe along the antral bulge. (K) Postoperative coronal CT scan demonstrating favorable restoration of
orbital volume. (L) Postoperative axial CT scan demonstrating favorable restoration of orbital volume posterior
to the equator of the globe.

segments and internal orbit is confirmed in

sequential fashion according to the following
systematic protocol: malar eminence, infraorbital
rim, lateral orbital rim, orbital floor, medial internal
orbit/postero-medial orbital bulge, lateral internal
orbit, posterior orbit/orbital apex, globe projection.

Maxillo-Mandibular Reconstruction
The loss of mandibular continuity or palatal integrity as a result of ablative tumor therapy or severe
trauma is physiologically and psychologically
debilitating. The utility of the free fibular osteocutaneous flap (FFOF) for mandibular reconstruction
was recognized and subsequently popularized

by Hidalgo in 1989.41,42 Since that time, a series

of surgeons throughout the world have shown
the FFOF to be a highly reliable flap for reconstruction of mandibular and maxillary continuity
defects.
Despite wide acceptance, there has been some
controversy over the method of fixation used to
stabilize the fibular constructs, with some authors
advocating miniplates43,44 and others advocating
reconstruction plates.10,45,46 One of the advantages of reconstruction plates is that an accurate
shape of the neomandible may be created by
bending the plate to the native mandible. In situ
plate bending is time consuming, however, and
a gap is formed between the straight fibula and

141

142

Bell

Fig. 6. (continued)

the curved mandible unless multiple osteotomies

are performed. Increasing the number of fibular
osteotomies further increases the complexity of
the procedure and invites vascular complications.
Additionally, in situ plate bending is not practical if
tumor grossly invades soft tissue on the lateral
mandible.
The use of stereolithographic models for
plate adaptation before surgery has been used
by the author for the past 5 years to aid in

maxillo-mandibular reconstruction.10 The model

may be used to remove tumor deformation
and eliminate mandibular convexities, and thus
minimize fibular osteotomies. In addition to correcting transverse problems related to mandibular reconstruction, favorable anteroposterior
relationships can be achieved by placing the
reconstruction plate/fibular construct in an
optimal relationship relative to the opposite
jaw, at the correct occlusal plane angle. This

Computer Planning in Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery

will allow for more predictable implant-supported prosthetic rehabilitation and prevent
overprojection of the mandible.
More recently, CAD/CAM software has been
used to accomplish much of this bench work
in a virtual environment (Fig. 7). All of the previously mentioned factors can be virtually altered
and a stent is then constructed to provide
a method for transferring the virtual reconstruction
into reality.47 Hirsch and colleagues described the
use of CAD/CAM technology to produce orthognathically ideal surgical outcomes for patients
with segmental mandibular defects undergoing
reconstruction with fibular free flaps.48 Using the
Surgi Case CMF software (Leuven, Belgium),
surgery is simulated on a computer workstation.
The fibular and maxillary or mandibular osteotomies are transferred to a rapid prototyping instrument and a guide stent is constructed to allow
for accurate placement of osteotomies (Medical
Modeling, Inc, Golden, CO). The guide stent is
sterilized and used during surgery (both fibular osteotomies and maxillary or mandibular osteotomies). In this fashion, the vascularized composite
tissue is transferred into the appropriate anteroposterior, vertical, and transverse position,
presumably with increased accuracy and efficiency (Fig. 8). Additionally, dental implants can
be placed into the proper position based on
optimal digital renderings. Proper positioning of
the entire composite tissue construct is then
confirmed intraoperatively using navigation. This
real time intraoperative imaging also allows for
immediate dental implant placement, and theoretically optimizes the chance for successful prosthetic restoration and decreases treatment time
(Fig. 9).

Cranial Reconstruction
Reconstruction of cranial defects (cranioplasty)
may be performed using autogenous bone or
a number of alloplastic materials. Bone cranioplasty
should generally be performed whenever possible,
although success rates are proportional to the size
of the defect.49 However, if adequate bone is not
available to cover the critical-sized defect, alloplastic cranioplasty is a viable option. Alloplastic cranioplasties may be performed with titanium (mesh or
custom molded) and acrylics (polymethylmethacrylate),50 ceramics (hydroxyapatite cement),51,52 or
high-performance thermoplastics (porous highdensity polyethylene or polyetheretherketone
[PEEK]).53 The ultimate choice of material depends
on the size and location of the defect, the presence
or absence of infection, the quality and quantity of

soft tissue coverage available, and the proximity

to the paranasal sinuses.
CAD/CAM software can be used to construct
custom-milled titanium plates or patient-specific
implants constructed from high-performance thermoplastics such as PEEK.54,55 The primary advantage of this technique over intraoperative molding
of titanium mesh combined with hydroxyapatite,
for example, is that it is potentially time saving
and it provides an accurate, anatomic reconstruction of the defect. The significant disadvantage,
however, is that it is difficult to manage the extradural dead space, when present, and the custom
implants are expensive.

Tumor Resection
Intraoperative navigation has been advocated as
a means to delineate resection margins during extirpative tumor surgery in the craniomaxillofacial
skeleton.5658 Several reports have highlighted
the value of this technology in improving the precision in which tumors are resected, while minimizing the amount of uninvolved tissues. In
addition, surgery involving the skull base, pterygomaxillary fossa, or infratemporal fossa, including
temporomandibular
joint
(TMJ)
ankylosis
release,59 may be performed with an added
degree of safety with respect to surrounding vital
structures (Fig. 10). Finally, osteotomies may be
accurately positioned based on a presurgical
image so that preformed implants, bone grafts,
or free flaps may be inset into the defect in an effort
to increase operative efficiency and accuracy.
Surgery in the mandible deserves special
mention because of the complexities of navigating
a mobile structure. Accurate synchronization of
the acquired CT data is made difficult because of
the problems associated with determining a stable
and reproducible mandibular position. There are
three possible solutions to the problem.60 The first
approach is to place the patient in intermaxillary
fixation before the CT scan. This method,
however, is not feasible for transoral surgery. The
second method is to position the mandible in
centric relation or centric occlusion, either manually or using a dental splint. The strategy is sensitive to relative movements of the mandible,
which in turn undermines the accuracy of the intraoperative navigation. A third approach has been
described that uses a special sensor frame that
is mounted onto the mandible, thereby allowing
surgeons to optically track the jaws position and
to compensate for its continuous movement
during surgery. Although time consuming, this
method has the theoretical advantage of improved
accuracy by monitoring the position of the

143

144

Bell

Fig. 7. A 29-year-old male with ossifying fibroma involving the anterior mandible. (A) Preoperative profile. (B)
Preoperative panoramic radiograph. (C) 3-D CT image of the mandible, highlighting tumor deformation. (D)
Virtually corrected 3-D CT image of the mandible, with tumor deformation removed and restoration of normal
mandibular contours. (E) Perfected stereolithographic model with pre-bent reconstruction plate. (F) Intraoperative appearance of tumor before resection. (G) Intraoperative view following transoral tumor excision and application of pre-bent reconstruction plate. (H) Postoperative profile. (I) Postoperative panoramic radiograph.

Computer Planning in Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery

Fig. 8. Virtual planning for resection and fibular free flap reconstruction in a patient with osteoradionecrosis and
pathologic fracture of the mandible. (A) Preoperative panoramic radiograph. (B) 3-D CT images a virtually
planned resection with insertion of virtual cutting guides to assist in accurate placement of osteotomies. (C)
Virtual fibula is inserted and cutting guides are designed to accurately transfer the virtual surgery into reality.
(D) Virtual template of the reconstructed mandible with insertion of virtual reconstruction bar, which is then
additively manufactured into an acrylic template or custom titanium reconstruction bar. (E) Stereolithographic
model of unaltered mandible (clear model), the virtually reconstructed mandible (white model), and the reconstruction plate and acrylic template. (F) Unaltered stereolithographic model and mandibular cutting guide. (G)
Intraoperative view with mandibular cutting guide. (H) Postoperative panoramic radiograph.

mandible directly, rather than by its relative position to other fixed cranial structures.

Craniofacial/Orthognathic Surgery
Preoperative computer imaging and intraoperative
navigation are useful for planning complex surgical
movements of the craniofacial skeleton. Using
recently designed CAD/CAM software, osteotomies may be planned and the jaws or other
anatomic structures can be virtually repositioned
in any plane of space.6170 Maxillo-mandibular
deformities of yaw, pitch, or roll can be accurately

repositioned into a more esthetic and functional

position based on the individual clinical situation.
Although clearly not necessary for routine orthognathic procedures, its potential in achieving
improved accuracy in treatment planning complex
facial asymmetry cases is self-evident.
Xia and colleagues71,72 and Gateno and
colleagues73 have described computer-aided
surgical simulation (CASS) for use in treatment
planning of complex cranio-maxillofacial deformities. The first step of the CASS process is to
create a composite skull model.68 This is accomplished with a bite jig that is used to relate the

145

146

Bell

Fig. 9. A 67-year-old female with invasive mucosal melanoma involving the maxillary gingiva extending from the
second molar to the contralateral second molar. (A) Preoperative appearance of lesion. (B) Virtual image based
on CT data set of patient illustrating planned resection osteotomies. (C) Virtual reconstruction using a fibula
(average female dimensions) illustrating inset with care to position fibular construct into a favorable position
relative to the dental arch and into the pterygoid plates. (D) Virtual implants are placed into the virtual neomaxilla in a prosthetically favorable position relative to the opposing dental arches. (E) Stereolithographic model
with neomaxilla template and dental implant stent additively manufactured based on the virtual reconstruction.
(F) Navigated resection osteotomies. The virtual reconstruction is back-converted into the navigation system
generating intraoperative navigation images that are used to transfer the virtual reconstruction into reality.
(G) Resection specimen. (H) Closing-wedge fibular osteotomies are performed using cutting guides and templates
from the virtual reconstruction. (I) Neomaxilla is formed from the fibula and implants are then placed using
a stent constructed from the virtual images. (J) Accurate inset of the fibular construct is confirmed using intraoperative navigation. Planned anteroposterior and vertical position of the anterior neomaxilla is confirmed.
(K) Following stabilization of the neomaxillary construct, the dental implants are placed under navigation guidance. (L) Postoperative panoramic image.

Computer Planning in Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery

Fig. 9. (continued)

upper and lower dental casts to each other and to

support a set of fiducial markers. The fiducial
markers are then used to register the digital dental
models to the 3-D CT skull model. After the bite jig
is created, a CT of the patients craniofacial skeleton is obtained with the patient biting on the
bite jig. Digital dental models are then created by
scanning the plaster dental models with a laser
surface scanner. The result is a computerized
composite skull model with an accurate rendition
of the bone and teeth. The second step of the
CASS is to quantify the deformity with cephalometric analyses and virtual anthropometric
measurements. The third step in the process is
to simulate the surgery in the computer by moving
the bony segments to the desired position. Using
this software, the maxilla and mandible can be repositioned in all three planes of space. Hence,
deformities of yaw, pitch, and roll can be accurately corrected in a virtual environment. The final
step is to transfer the virtual plan to the patient
through surgical splints and templates that are
created using a specialized CAD/CAM technique.
The authors preferred technique uses SimPlant
OMS (Materialise Dental, Leuven, Belgium) in

a fashion similar to the CASS described by Getano

and colleagues73 The patient is clinically examined
in the usual fashion for orthognathic surgery and
anthropometric measurements are obtained and
analyzed. The bite jig is created (Fig. 11A), natural
head position is virtually defined (Fig. 11B), plaster
casts are obtained, and a CT scan with 1-mm cuts
from the skull vertex to the clavicles is performed.
Digital clinical photos, upper and lower stone
casts, clinical anthropometric measurements, the
acrylic bite jig, final occlusion registration, CT datasets, and the gyroscopic natural head position
readings are then mailed to a software engineer
for computer rendering (Fig. 11C) (Medical
Modeling, Inc, Golden, Co). The software engineer
then creates digital dental models by scanning the
plaster casts with a laser surface scanner. The
digital dental casts are melded to the digital
CT skull using a best-fit model.68 A tentative
surgical plan is outlined and taken to a live
Web conference with the software engineer. The
maxillary and mandibular osteotomies are performed and movements are made with the
patients composite CT scan in the previously
defined natural head position (Fig. 11EG).

147

148

Bell

Fig. 10. A 25-year-old male with Ewing Sarcoma involving the mandible, masticator space, and infratemporal
fossa. (A) Preoperative photograph. (B) Pretreatment sagittal MRI demonstrating large tumor emanating from
the mandibular condyle with involvement of the masticator space and infratemporal fossa. (C) Intraoperative
photograph demonstrating the approach for surgical resection to include composite resection of the mandible,
masticator space, and infratemporal fossa via combined transcervical and infratemporal approach. (D) Intraoperative navigation used to assist in safe and accurate skull base resection. (E) Stereolithographic model used to plan
resection and pre-bend reconstruction plate. (F) Inset of the fibular fascio-osseous free flap. (G) Postoperative
photograph 12 months following surgery demonstrating resolving lymphedema, complete facial nerve function,
and favorable esthetics. (H) Postoperative occlusion.

Deformities of yaw, pitch, and roll can be virtually

corrected and accurately assessed using precise
angular and linear digital measurements. Any inaccuracies in the virtual plan can then be corrected
based on the virtual image analysis. Finally, the
virtual reconstruction is transferred to the patient
by construction of an intermediate and final splint

using a CAD/CAM technique, which is mailed

back to the surgeon before the planned
procedure.

Temporomandibular Joint Surgery

Treatment of end-stage degenerative TMJ disease
poses significant challenges to the surgeon

Computer Planning in Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery

Fig. 11. Computer-aided surgical simulation with Simplant OMS and Medical Modeling Corporation. (A) Registration of natural head position with fiducial markers and gyroscope. (B) Gyroscope natural head position readings
showing pitch, roll, and yaw data. (C) Preoperative checklist with required data necessary for virtual planning. (D)
SimPlant OMS order form. (E) CT data set with 3D reconstructions and virtual plan for a patient with severe mandibular deficiency, retrogenia, and short ramus height. Patient is treatment planned for counter-clockwise maxillo-mandibular repositioning using bilateral inverted L osteotomies, Le Fort I, and genioplasty. (F) The mandible
is virtually repositioned according to the preoperative plan, midlines are confirmed, and accurate and symmetrical correction of pitch, roll, and yaw is verified. A virtual intermediate splint is constructed from laser scanned
plaster casts, which is then milled into an acrylic intermediate splint using a CAD/CAM technique. (G) The maxilla
is virtually repositioned and a final splint is constructed intermediate splint following virtual repositioning of the
mandible according to the preoperative plan (right mandibular sagittal osteotomy and left mandibular inverted L
osteotomy). (H) Final splint following virtual reposition of the maxilla (Le Fort I ostoeotmy) and chin (genioplasty). (I) Post-prediction 3-D cephalometric analysis. Midlines are confirmed and accurate and symmetrical
correction of pitch roll and yaw is verified (J) post-prediction 3-D CT images (K) post-prediction tereolithographic
model for analysis and pre-bending of reconstruction plate (L) insert pre-bent reconstruction plate to stabilize
inverted L osteotomy with interpositional bone graft (M) intermediate splint in place (N) final splint in place
(O) preoperative appearance, frontal view (P) preoperative appearance, lateral view (Q) preoperative occlusion
(R) postoperative appearance, frontal view (S) postoperative appearance, lateral view (T) postoperative occlusion.
([d] From Medical Modeling, Inc, Golden, Co; with Permission.)

149

150

Bell

Fig. 11. (continued)

because of altered anatomy and carries the risk of

injury to structures within the middle cranial fossa.
Treatment is further complicated by the complex
functional demands of the TMJ. Various methods
have been described for total TMJ replacement,
including gap arthroplasty with autogenous bone
graft reconstruction, microvascular free tissue
transfer, stock alloplastic condyle, and fossa prosthesis construction and custom, patient-specific
TMJ condyle and fossa implants.

Traditionally, a two-stage approach has been

used for total TMJ replacement in the presence
of ankylosis or end-stage TMJ degeneration.
Gap arthroplasties were performed, often with
risk of neurovascular injury to structures in the
middle cranial fossa, and a second-stage reconstruction was performed some time later. Navigation has been advocated for use in TMJ
surgery for two primary reasons: (1) to promote
safety during the ankylosis release, and (2) to

Computer Planning in Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery

Fig. 11. (continued)

provide a predictable method by which onestage ankylosis release and custom TMJ
replacement can be facilitated.59 Malis and
colleagues74 described a one-stage approach
by which the navigation-assisted surgery is
simulated on a stereolithographic model and
a custom prosthesis is fabricated before surgery
(Fig. 12).

Dental/Craniofacial Implants
Intraoperative navigation has for many years been
advocated as a means to assist in the accurate placement of dental implants.33,7579 For a number of
reasons, however, widespread acceptance of this
technology for routine dental implantsupported
prosthetic rehabilitation has not occurred. The
reasons for this are primarily related to cost of the

151

152

Bell

Fig. 11. (continued)

equipment in the context of the current US dental

care delivery modelthat being small, office-based
private practices. The benefits probably do not
outweigh the costs for routine cases of dental implantology. On the other hand, there are several important
exceptions to this cost-benefit inequity, which are

primarily related to completely edentulous and

severely atrophic maxillo-mandibular rehabilitation78;
composite tissue reconstruction of the maxilla and
mandible following ablative surgery or posttraumatic
deformity57; and for craniofacial implants used for
prosthetic auricular reconstruction.80

Computer Planning in Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery

Fig. 12. One-stage total temporomandibular joint replacement with custom alloplastic implants in a patient with
giant cell foreign body reaction secondary to failed Teflon-proplast implants. (A) Preoperative lateral view. (B)
Preoperative 3D CT image demonstrating condylar degeneration with loss of ramus-condyle height and retained
Teflon-proplast implant. (C) Virtual plan for resection before construction of custom TMJ condyle and fossa
implants. (D) Stereolithographic model demonstrating waxed up custom condyle and fossa TMJ implant
(TMJ Implants, Inc). (E) Intraoperative view of submandibular approach to the ramus facilitated navigation-assisted ramus osteotomy at the precise level as the virtual plan. Note navigation pointer. (F) CT images of intraoperative navigation with measurement of distance between glenoid fossa and planned ramus osteotomy,
facilitating accurate osteotomy placement. (G) Inset of custom fossa and condyle implants. (H) Postoperative
lateral view.

SUMMARY
Preoperative computer design and stereolithographic modeling combined with intraoperative
navigation provide a useful guide for and possibly
more accurate reconstruction of a variety of
complex
cranio-maxillofacial
deformities.
Although probably not necessary for routine use,
the authors early experience confirms that of

other surgeons with more than a decade of experience: computer-assisted surgery is indicated for
complex posttraumatic or postablative reconstruction of the orbits, cranium, maxilla, and
mandible; total TMJ replacement; orthognathic
surgery; and complex dental/craniofacial implantology. Further study is needed to provide
outcomes data and cost-benefit analyses for
each of these indications.

153

154

Bell
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author gratefully acknowledges the expertise of Katherine A. Weimer, MS (Chief Engineer,
Medical Modeling Inc, Golden CO) for her tireless
and dedicated technical assistance in computer
planning.

REFERENCES
1. Manson PN, Hoopes JE, Su CT. Structural pillars of the
facial skeleton: an approach to the management of Le
Fort fractures. Plast Reconstr Surg 1980;66:5461.
2. Gruss JS, Bubak PJ, Egbert MA. Craniofacial fractures. An algorithm to optimize results. Clin Plast
Surg 1992;19:195206.
3. Schramm A, Gellrich NC, Schmelzeisen R. Navigational surgery of the facial skeleton. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer; 2007.
4. Hemmy DC, David DJ, Herman GT. Three-dimensional
reconstruction of craniofacial deformity using computed
tomography. Neurosurgery 1983;13:53441.
5. Vannier MW, Marsh JL, Warren JO. Three dimensional
CT reconstruction images for craniofacial surgical
planning and evaluation. Radiology. 1984;150:17984.
6. Gillespie JE, Isherwood I. Three-dimensional
anatomical images from computed tomographic
scans. Br J Radiol 1986;59:28992.
7. Komori T, Takato T, Akagawa T. Use of a laser-hardened 3D-replica for simulated surgery. Int J Oral
Maxillofac Surg 1994;52:51621.
8. Bill JS, Reuther JF, Dittmann W, et al. Stereolithography in oral and maxillofacial operation planning. Int J
Oral Maxillofac Surg 1995;24:98103.
9. Sader R, Zeilhofer HF, Kliegis U, et al. Uber die Genauigheit von 3D-gestutzten Operationsplanungen mit
rapidprototping techniken. Mund Kiefer Gesichtchir
1997;1:614 [in German].
10. Bell RB, Dierks EJ, Potter JK, et al. A comparison of
fixation techniques in oro-mandibular reconstruction
utilizing fibular free flaps. J Oral Maxillofac Surg
2007;65(9):39.
11. Hannen EJM. Recreating the original contour in
tumor deformed mandibles for plate adapting. Int J
Oral Maxillofac Surg 2006;35:1835.
12. Perry M, Banks P, Richards R, et al. The use of
computer generated three-dimensional models in
orbital reconstruction. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg
1998;36:27584.
13. Santler G. The Graz hemisphere splint: a new
precise non invasive method of replacing the dental
arch of 3D-models by plaster models. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 1998;26:16973 [in German].
14. Linder A, Rasse M, Wolf HP, et al. Indikationen und
Anwendung stereolithographischer Schadelrekonstruktionen in der Mund Kiefer Gesichtschirurgie.
Radiologe 1995;25:57882.

15. Altobelli DE, Kikinis R, Mulliken FB, et al. Computerassisted three-dimensional planning in craniofacial
surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 1993;92:57685.
16. Girod S, Keeve E, Girod B. Advances in interactive
craniofacial surgery planning by 3D simulation and
visualization. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1995;37:1205.
17. Vannier MW, Marsh JL, Tsiaras A. Craniofacial
surgical planning and evaluation with computers.
In: Taylor RH, Lavallee S, Burdea GC, et al, editors.
Computer integrated surgery: technology and clinical applications. London (UK): MIT; 1995.
18. Bohner P, Holler C, Hassfeld S. Operation planning
in craniomaxillofacial surgery. Comput Aided Surg
1997;5:15361.
19. Hohlweg-Majert B, Schon R, Schmelzeisen R, et al.
Navigational maxillofacial surgery using virtual
models. World J Surg 2005;29:15308.
20. Schipper J, Klenzner T, Berlis A, et al. Objectivity of
therapeutic results following skull base surgery
using virtual model analysis. HNO 2006;54(9):
67783.
21. Drake JM, Joy M, Goldenberg A, et al. Computer
and robot assisted resection of thalamic astrocytomas in children. Neurosurgery 1991;79:2733.
22. Barnett GH. Surgical management of convexity and
falcine meningeomas using interactive image
guided surgery systems. Neurosurg Clin N Am
1996;7:27984.
23. Mosges R, Klimek L. Computer assisted surgery of
the paranasal sinuses. J Otolaryngol 1993;22:6971.
24. Ossoff RH, Reinisch L. Computer assisted surgical
techniques: a vision for the future of otolaryngology-head and neck surgery. J Otolaryngol
1994;23:3549.
25. Hassfeld S, Muhling J. Computer assisted oral and
maxillofacial surgery: a review and an assessment
of technology. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2001;30:
213.
26. Wagner A, Ploder O, Enislidis G, et al. Virtual image
guided navigation in tumor surgery: technical innovation. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 1995;23:2713.
27. Ploder O, Wagner A, Enislidis G, et al. Computergestutzte intraoperative visualisierung von dentalen
implantaten. Radiologe 1995;35:56972.
28. Marmulla R, Niederdellmann H. Computer assisted
bone segment navigation. J Craniomaxillofac Surg
1998;26:34759.
29. Luebbers HT, Messmer P, Obwegeser JA, et al.
Comparison of different registration methods for
surgical navigation in cranio-maxillofacial surgery.
J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2008;36:10916.
30. Metzger MC, Rafii A, Holhweg-Majert B, et al.
Comparison of 4 registration strategies for computer
aided maxillofacial surgery. Otolaryngol Head Neck
Surg 2007;137:93.
31. Heiland M, Habermann CR, Schmelzle R. Indications and limitations of intraoperative navigation in

Computer Planning in Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

maxillofacial surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2004;

62:105963, 99 2007.
Hejazi N. Frameless image guided neuronavigation
in orbital surgery: practical applications. Neurosurg
Rev 2006;29:11822.
Ewers R, Schicho K, Undt G, et al. Basic research
and 12 years of clinical experience in computer-assisted navigation technology: a review. Int J Oral
Maxillofac Surg 2005;34:18.
Schramm A, Schon R, Rucker M, et al. Computer-assisted oral and maxillofacial reconstruction. J
Computing and Information Technology CIT 2006;
14(1):716.
Pham AM, Rafii AA, Metzger MC, et al. Computer
modeling and intraoperative navigation in maxillofacial surgery. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2007;137:
62431.
Hammer B, Kunz C, Schramm A, et al. Repair of
complex orbital fractures: technical problems, state
of the art solutions and future perspectives. Ann
Acad Med Singap 1999;28:68791.
Gellrich NC, Schramm A, Hammer B, et al.
Computer-assisted secondary reconstruction of
unilateral posttraumatic orbital deformity. Plast
Reconstr Surg 2002;110:1417.
Schmelzeisen R, Gellrich NC, Schoen R, et al.
Navigation-aided reconstruction of medial orbital
wall and floor contour in cranio-maxillofacial
reconstruction. Injury 2004;35:95562 Int J Care
Injured.
Metzger MC, Schon R, Schulze D, et al. Individual
preformed titanium meshes for orbital fractures.
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod
2006;102:4427.
Klug C, Schicho K, Ploder O, et al. Point to point
computer assisted navigation for precise transfer
of planned zygoma osteotomies from the stereolithographic model into reality. J Oral Maxillofac Surg
2006;64:5509.
Hidalgo DA. Fibula free flap: a new method of
mandible reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg
1989;84(1):719.
Wei FC, Santamaria E, Chang YM, et al. Mandibular reconstruction with fibular osteoseptocutaneous free flap and simultaneous placement of
osseointegrated dental implants. J Craniofac
Surg. 1997;8:512.
Hidalgo DA, Pusic AL. Free flap mandibular reconstruction: a 10-year follow-up study. Plast Reconstr
Surg 2002;110(2):43849.
Cordeiro PG, Disa JJ, Hidalgo DA, et al. Reconstruction of the mandible with osseous free flaps: a 10year experience. Plast Reconstr Surg 1999;104(5):
131420.
Kim Y, Smith J, Sercarz JA, et al. Fixation of mandibular osteotomies: comparison of locking and nonlocking hardware. Head Neck 2007;29(5):4537.

46. Futran ND, Urken ML, Buchbinder D, et al. Rigid

fixation of vascularized bone grafts in mandibular
reconstruction. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg
1995;121(1):706.
47. Leiggener C, Messo E, Thor A, et al. A selective
laser sintering guide for transferring a virtual plan
to real time surgery in composite mandibular reconstruction with free fibula osseous flaps. Int J Oral
Maxillofac Surg 2009;38(2):18792.
48. Hirsch DL, Garfein ES, Christensen AM, et al. Use of
computer-aided design and computer-aided
manufacturing to produce orthognathically ideal
surgical outcomes: a paradigm shift in head and
neck reconstruction. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2009;
67(10):211522.
49. Grant GA, Jolley M, Ellenbogen RG, et al. Failure of
autologous bone assisted cranioplasty following decompressive craniectomy in children and adolescents. J Neurosurg 2004;100:1638.
50. Malis LI. Titanium mesh and acrylic cranioplasty.
Neurosurgery. 1989;25(3):3515.
51. Pompili A, Caroli F, Carpanese L, et al. Cranioplasty
performed with a new osteoconductive osteoinducing hydroxyapatite derived material. J Neurosurg
1998;89(2):23642.
52. Tadros M, Costantino PD. Advances in cranioplasty:
a simplified algorithm to guide cranial reconstruction
of acquired defects. Facial Plast Surg 2008;24(1):
13545.
53. Frodel JL Jr. Computer designed implants for fronto
orbital defect reconstruction. Facial Plast Surg 2008;
24(1):2234.
54. Chim H, Schantz JT. New frontiers in calvarial reconstruction: integrating computer assisted design and
tissue engineering. Plast Reconstr Surg 2005;
116(6):172641.
55. Dean D, Min KJ, Bond A. Computer aided design of
large format prefabricated cranial plates. J Craniofac Surg 2003;14(6):81932.
56. Schramm A, Suarez-Cunqueiro MM, Barth EL, et al.
Computer assisted navigation in craniomaxillofacial
tumors. J Craniofac Surg 2008;19(4):106774.
57. Schramm A, Gellrich NC, Gutwald R, et al. Indications for computer assisted treatment of
cranio-maxillofacial tumors. Comput Aided Surg
2000;5(5):34352.
58. To EW, Yuen EH, Tsang WM, et al. The use of stereotactic navigation guidance in minimally invasive
transnasal nasopharyngectomy: a comparison to
the conventional open transfacial approach.
Br J Radiol 2002;75(892):34550.
59. Schmelzeisen R, Gellrich NC, Schramm A, et al.
Navigation guided resection of temporomandibular
joint ankylosis promotes safety in skull base surgery.
J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2002;60:127583.
60. Casap N, Wexler A, Eliashar R. Computerized navigation for surgery of the lower jaw: comparison of 2

155

Bell

156

61.

62.

63.

64.

65.

66.

67.

68.

69.

70.

71.

navigation systems. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2008;

66(7):146775.
Metzger MC, Hohlwe-Majert B, Schwarz U, et al.
Manufacturing splints of orthognathic surgery using
a three dimensional printer. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral
Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2008;105(2):e17.
Swennen GR, Mommaerts MY, Abeloos J, et al. The
use of a wax bite wafer and a double computed
tomography scan procedure to obtain a three dimensional model. J Craniofac Surg 2007;18(3):5339.
Olszewski R, Villamil MB, Trevisan DG, et al.
Towards an integrated system for planning and assisting maxillofacial orthognathic surgery. Comput
Methods Programs Biomed. 2008;91(1):1321.
Noguchi N, Tsuji M, Shigematsu M, et al. An orthognathic simulation system integrating teeth, jaw and
face data using 3D cephalometry. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2007;36(7):6405.
Papadopoulos MA, Christou PK, Athanasiou AE,
et al. Three dimensional craniofacial reconstruction
imaging. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol
Endod 2002;93:382.
Xia J, Ip HH, Samman N, et al. Computer assisted
three dimensional surgical planning and simulation:
3D virtual osteotomy. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg
2000;29:11.
Gateno J, Teichgraeber JF, Xia JJ. Three dimensional
surgical planning for maxillary and midface distraction osteogenesis. J Craniofac Surg 2003;14:833.
Gateno J, Xia J, Teichgraeber JF, et al. A new technique for the creation of a computerized composite
skull model. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2003;61:222.
Santler G. 3D COSMOS: a new 3D model based
computerized operation simulation and navigation
system. J Maxillofac Surg 2000;28:287.
Santler G. The Graz hemisphere splint: a new
precise, non-invasive method of replacing the dental
arch of 3D models by plaster models. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 1998;26:169.
Xia JJ, Gateno J, Teichgraeber JF. Three-dimensional computer-aided surgical simulation for

72.

73.

74.

75.

76.

77.

78.

79.

80.

maxillofacial surgery. Atlas Oral Maxillofac Surg

Clin North Am 2005;13:25.
Xia JJ, Gateno J, Teichgraeber JF. New clinical
protocol to evaluate craniomaxillofacial deformity
and plan surgical correction. J Oral Maxillofac
Surg 2009;67(10):2093106.
Gateno J, Xia JJ, Teichgraeber JF, et al. Clinical
feasibility of computer aided surgical simulation
(CASS) in the treatment of complex craniomaxillofacial deformities. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2007;65:
72834.
Malis DD, Xia JJ, Gateno J, et al. New protocol for 1stage treatment of temporomandibular joint ankylosis using surgical navigation. J Oral Maxillofac
Surg 2007;65:18438.
Wagner A, Wanschitz F, Birkfellner W, et al.
Computer aided placement of endosseous oral
implants in patients after ablative tumour surgery:
assessment of accuracy. Clin Oral Implants Res
2003;14:3408.
Ruppin J, Popovic A, Strauss M, et al. Evaluation of
the accuracy of three different computer aided
surgery systems in dental implantology: optical
tracking vs. stereolithographic split systems. Clin
Oral Implants Res 2008;19(7):70916.
Wittwer G, Adeyemo WL, Schicho K, et al. Navigated flapless transmucosal implant placement in
the mandible: a pilot study in 20 patients.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2007;22(5):8017.
Ewers R, Schicho K, Truppe M, et al. Computer
aided navigation in dental implantology: 7 years of
clinical experience. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2004;
62(3):32934.
Casap N, Wexler A, Persky N, et al. Navigation
surgery for dental implants: assessment of accuracy
of the image guided implantology system.
J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2004;62(9 Suppl 2):1169.
Girod SC, Rohlfing T, Maurer CR Jr. Image guided
surgical navigation in implant based auricular
reconstruction. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2008;66(6):
13026.