The Amsterdam UMC protocol for computer-assisted mandibular and maxillary reconstruction; A cadaveric study

Gustaaf J.C. van Baar; Johannes N. Lodders; Chayenne Chhangur; Lars Leeuwrik; Tymour Forouzanfar; Niels P.T.J. Liberton; W. Erwin R. Berkhout; Henri A.H. Winters; Frank K.J. Leusink

doi:10.1016/j.oraloncology.2022.106050

The Amsterdam UMC protocol for computer-assisted mandibular and maxillary reconstruction; A cadaveric study

Gustaaf J.C. van Baar^*
, Johannes N. Lodders
, Chayenne Chhangur
, Lars Leeuwrik
, Tymour Forouzanfar
, Niels P.T.J. Liberton
, W. Erwin R. Berkhout
, Henri A.H. Winters
, Frank K.J. Leusink

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to Journal › Article › Academic › peer-review

Abstract

Objectives: In this cadaveric study, the accuracy of CAS guided mandibular and maxillary reconstruction including immediate dental implant placement in different Brown defect classes is assessed. Materials and methods: The virtual planning and surgical procedure was conducted according to a newly proposed Amsterdam UMC reconstruction protocol. Postoperative evaluation was performed according to a previously proposed evaluation guideline. Results: Fourteen mandibular and 6 maxillary reconstructions were performed. Average mandibular angle deviations were 1.52°±1.32, 1.85°±1.58, 1.37°±1.09, 1.78°±1.37, 2.43°±1.52 and 2.83°±2.37, respectively for the left and right axial angles, left and right coronal angles and left and right sagittal angles. A total of 62 dental implants were placed in neomandibles with an average dXYZ values of 3.68 ± 2.21 mm and 16 in neomaxillas with an average dXYZ values of 3.24 ± 1.7 mm. Conclusion: Promising levels of accuracy were achieved for all mandibular angles. Dental implant positions approached the preoperative preferred positions well, within the margin to manufacture prosthetic devices.

Original language	English
Article number	106050
Pages (from-to)	1-10
Number of pages	10
Journal	Oral Oncology
Volume	133
Early online date	30 Jul 2022
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oraloncology.2022.106050
Publication status	Published - Oct 2022

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
This work was supported by the Oral Reconstruction Foundation [grant number ORF21807] and the Nederlandse Vereniging voor Orale Implantologie NVOI [grant number U180 80].

Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 The Author(s)

Funding

This work was supported by the Oral Reconstruction Foundation [grant number ORF21807] and the Nederlandse Vereniging voor Orale Implantologie NVOI [grant number U180 80].

Keywords

Accuracy
Cadaver
Computer-Assisted
Dental Implant
Fibula Free Flap
Maxillofacial Reconstruction
Surgery

Access to Document

10.1016/j.oraloncology.2022.106050

Persistent URL (handle)

Persistent link

Cite this

van Baar, G. J. C., Lodders, J. N., Chhangur, C., Leeuwrik, L., Forouzanfar, T., Liberton, N. P. T. J., Berkhout, W. E. R., Winters, H. A. H., & Leusink, F. K. J. (2022). The Amsterdam UMC protocol for computer-assisted mandibular and maxillary reconstruction; A cadaveric study. Oral Oncology, 133, 1-10. Article 106050. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oraloncology.2022.106050

@article{237d8c4c56f94dcf9397cfabce223b59,

title = "The Amsterdam UMC protocol for computer-assisted mandibular and maxillary reconstruction; A cadaveric study",

abstract = "Objectives: In this cadaveric study, the accuracy of CAS guided mandibular and maxillary reconstruction including immediate dental implant placement in different Brown defect classes is assessed. Materials and methods: The virtual planning and surgical procedure was conducted according to a newly proposed Amsterdam UMC reconstruction protocol. Postoperative evaluation was performed according to a previously proposed evaluation guideline. Results: Fourteen mandibular and 6 maxillary reconstructions were performed. Average mandibular angle deviations were 1.52°±1.32, 1.85°±1.58, 1.37°±1.09, 1.78°±1.37, 2.43°±1.52 and 2.83°±2.37, respectively for the left and right axial angles, left and right coronal angles and left and right sagittal angles. A total of 62 dental implants were placed in neomandibles with an average dXYZ values of 3.68 ± 2.21 mm and 16 in neomaxillas with an average dXYZ values of 3.24 ± 1.7 mm. Conclusion: Promising levels of accuracy were achieved for all mandibular angles. Dental implant positions approached the preoperative preferred positions well, within the margin to manufacture prosthetic devices.",

keywords = "Accuracy, Cadaver, Computer-Assisted, Dental Implant, Fibula Free Flap, Maxillofacial Reconstruction, Surgery",

author = "\{van Baar\}, \{Gustaaf J.C.\} and Lodders, \{Johannes N.\} and Chayenne Chhangur and Lars Leeuwrik and Tymour Forouzanfar and Liberton, \{Niels P.T.J.\} and Berkhout, \{W. Erwin R.\} and Winters, \{Henri A.H.\} and Leusink, \{Frank K.J.\}",

note = "Funding Information: This work was supported by the Oral Reconstruction Foundation [grant number ORF21807] and the Nederlandse Vereniging voor Orale Implantologie NVOI [grant number U180 80]. Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2022 The Author(s)",

year = "2022",

month = oct,

doi = "10.1016/j.oraloncology.2022.106050",

language = "English",

volume = "133",

pages = "1--10",

journal = "Oral Oncology",

issn = "1368-8375",

publisher = "Elsevier Ltd",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The Amsterdam UMC protocol for computer-assisted mandibular and maxillary reconstruction; A cadaveric study

AU - van Baar, Gustaaf J.C.

AU - Lodders, Johannes N.

AU - Chhangur, Chayenne

AU - Leeuwrik, Lars

AU - Forouzanfar, Tymour

AU - Liberton, Niels P.T.J.

AU - Berkhout, W. Erwin R.

AU - Winters, Henri A.H.

AU - Leusink, Frank K.J.

N1 - Funding Information: This work was supported by the Oral Reconstruction Foundation [grant number ORF21807] and the Nederlandse Vereniging voor Orale Implantologie NVOI [grant number U180 80]. Publisher Copyright: © 2022 The Author(s)

PY - 2022/10

Y1 - 2022/10

N2 - Objectives: In this cadaveric study, the accuracy of CAS guided mandibular and maxillary reconstruction including immediate dental implant placement in different Brown defect classes is assessed. Materials and methods: The virtual planning and surgical procedure was conducted according to a newly proposed Amsterdam UMC reconstruction protocol. Postoperative evaluation was performed according to a previously proposed evaluation guideline. Results: Fourteen mandibular and 6 maxillary reconstructions were performed. Average mandibular angle deviations were 1.52°±1.32, 1.85°±1.58, 1.37°±1.09, 1.78°±1.37, 2.43°±1.52 and 2.83°±2.37, respectively for the left and right axial angles, left and right coronal angles and left and right sagittal angles. A total of 62 dental implants were placed in neomandibles with an average dXYZ values of 3.68 ± 2.21 mm and 16 in neomaxillas with an average dXYZ values of 3.24 ± 1.7 mm. Conclusion: Promising levels of accuracy were achieved for all mandibular angles. Dental implant positions approached the preoperative preferred positions well, within the margin to manufacture prosthetic devices.

AB - Objectives: In this cadaveric study, the accuracy of CAS guided mandibular and maxillary reconstruction including immediate dental implant placement in different Brown defect classes is assessed. Materials and methods: The virtual planning and surgical procedure was conducted according to a newly proposed Amsterdam UMC reconstruction protocol. Postoperative evaluation was performed according to a previously proposed evaluation guideline. Results: Fourteen mandibular and 6 maxillary reconstructions were performed. Average mandibular angle deviations were 1.52°±1.32, 1.85°±1.58, 1.37°±1.09, 1.78°±1.37, 2.43°±1.52 and 2.83°±2.37, respectively for the left and right axial angles, left and right coronal angles and left and right sagittal angles. A total of 62 dental implants were placed in neomandibles with an average dXYZ values of 3.68 ± 2.21 mm and 16 in neomaxillas with an average dXYZ values of 3.24 ± 1.7 mm. Conclusion: Promising levels of accuracy were achieved for all mandibular angles. Dental implant positions approached the preoperative preferred positions well, within the margin to manufacture prosthetic devices.

KW - Accuracy

KW - Cadaver

KW - Computer-Assisted

KW - Dental Implant

KW - Fibula Free Flap

KW - Maxillofacial Reconstruction

KW - Surgery

UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85135111444

UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85135111444#tab=citedBy

U2 - 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2022.106050

DO - 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2022.106050

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85135111444

SN - 1368-8375

VL - 133

SP - 1

EP - 10

JO - Oral Oncology

JF - Oral Oncology

M1 - 106050

ER -

The Amsterdam UMC protocol for computer-assisted mandibular and maxillary reconstruction; A cadaveric study

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Funding

Keywords

Access to Document

Persistent URL (handle)

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this