Although many advances have been made in three-dimensional virtual planning in maxillofacial surgery, facial harmony is still difficult to achieve and is heavily dependent on the surgeon’s experience. The aim of the study is to present a method to build up an average three-dimensional virtual human skull to be used as a reference template for bone repositioning and reconstruction during maxillofacial surgical interventions.
Methods:
A total of 20 patients (10 females and 10 males) were selected for the optimal outcome after orthognathic surgery. Postoperative cone-beam computed tomography scans were collected and processed in order to obtain three-dimensional digital models of each skull. For male and female subgroups, the three-dimensional skull models were registered and an average three-dimensional virtual skull model was computed. Deviation color maps were calculated to show differences between each postoperative skull model in the population and the obtained average three-dimensional skull. A clinical use case of genioplasty treatment assisted by the provided average three-dimensional skull template was presented.
Results:
The overall mean deviation from the average three-dimensional skull model was 1.3 ± 0.6 and 1.6 ± 0.5 mm in male and female subgroups, respectively. For both groups, the greatest deviations were at the area of the mandible, while almost no deviation was found at the zygomatic and orbital areas. In the presented use case, the female average three-dimensional skull model was effectively used for guiding surgical planning.
Conclusion:
The presented method of obtaining an average three-dimensional virtual human skull may offer the interesting perspective of performing an innovative template-assisted maxillofacial surgery.
PatcasRCunninghamSJShuteJ, et al. Motivation for orthognathic treatment and anticipated satisfaction levels—a two-centre cross-national audit. J Craniomaxillofac Surg2017; 45(6): 1004–1009.
2.
KinnebrewMCHoffmanDRCarltonDM.Projecting the soft-tissue outcome of surgical and orthodontic manipulation of the maxillofacial skeleton. Am J Orthod1983; 84(6): 508–519.
3.
HoldawayRA.A soft-tissue cephalometric analysis and its use in orthodontic treatment planning. Part I. Am J Orthod1983; 84(1): 1–28.
4.
WermkerKKleinheinzJJungS, et al. Soft tissue response and facial symmetry after orthognathic surgery. J Craniomaxillofac Surg2014; 42(6): e339–e145.
5.
HoldawayRA.A soft-tissue cephalometric analysis and its use in orthodontic treatment planning. Part II. Am J Orthod1984; 85(4): 279–293.
6.
ArnettGWJelicJSKimJ, et al. Soft tissue cephalometric analysis: diagnosis and treatment planning of dentofacial deformity. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop1999; 116(3): 239–253.
7.
BaileyLJDoverAJProffitWR.Long-term soft tissue changes after orthodontic and surgical corrections of skeletal class III malocclusions. Angle Orthod2007; 77(3): 389–396.
8.
JossCUJoss-VassalliIMKiliaridisS, et al. Soft tissue profile changes after bilateral sagittal split osteotomy for mandibular advancement: a systematic review. J. Oral Maxillofac Surg2010; 68(6): 1260–1269.
9.
AlmeidaRCCevidanesLHCarvalhoFA, et al. Soft tissue response to mandibular advancement using 3D CBCT scanning. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg2011; 40(4): 353–359.
10.
JokicDJokicDUglesicV, et al. Soft tissue changes after mandibular setback and bimaxillary surgery in Class III patients. Angle Orthod2013; 83(5): 817–823.
11.
Toepel-SieversCFischer-BrandiesH.Validity of the computer-assisted cephalometric growth prognosis VTO (visual treatment objective) according to Ricketts. J Orofac Orthop1999; 60(3): 185–194.
12.
De VosWCasselmanJSwennenGR. Cone-beam computerized tomography (CBCT) imaging of the oral and maxillofacial region: a systematic review of the literature. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg2009; 38(6): 609–625.
13.
PlooijJMSwennenGRRangelFA, et al. Evaluation of reproducibility and reliability of 3D soft tissue analysis using 3D stereophotogrammetry. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg2009; 38(3): 267–273.
14.
Moerenhout GelaudeFSwennenGRCasselmanJW, et al. Accuracy and repeatability of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) measurements used in the determination of facial indices in the laboratory setup. J Craniomaxillofac Surg2009; 37(1): 18–23.
15.
KochelJMeyer-MarcottyPStrnadF, et al. 3D soft tissue analysis—part 1: sagittal parameters. J Orofac Orthop2010; 71(1): 40–52.
16.
KochelJMeyer-MarcottyPKochelM, et al. 3D soft tissue analysis—part 2: vertical parameters. J Orofac Orthop2010; 71(3): 207–220.
17.
SwennenGRJMollemansWSchutyserF.Three-dimensional treatment planning of orthognathic surgery in the era of virtual imaging. J Oral Maxillofac Surg2009; 67(10): 2080–2092.
18.
NadjmiNMollemansWDaelemansA, et al. Virtual occlusion in planning orthognathic surgical procedures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg2010; 39(5): 457–462.
19.
DaiJTangMXinP, et al. Accurate movement of jaw segment in virtual 3D orthognathic surgery. J Craniofac Surg2014; 25(2): e140–e113.
20.
SwennenGRJ. Timing of three-dimensional virtual treatment planning of orthognathic surgery: a prospective single-surgeon evaluation on 350 consecutive cases. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am2014; 26(4): 475–485.
21.
ZinserMZoellerJ.Computer-designed splints for surgical transfer of 3D orthognathic planning. Facial Plast Surg2015; 31(5): 474–490.
22.
YuanPMaiHLiJ, et al. Design, development and clinical validation of computer-aided surgical simulation system for streamlined orthognathic surgical planning. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg2017; 12(12): 2129–2143.
23.
XiaJIpHHSammanN, et al. Three-dimensional virtual-reality surgical planning and soft-tissue prediction for orthognathic surgery. IEEE Trans Inf Technol Biomed2001; 5(2): 97–107.
24.
MarchettiCBianchiABassiM, et al. Mathematical modeling and numerical simulation in maxillofacial virtual surgery. J Craniofac Surg2007; 18(4): 826–832.
25.
BadialiGRoncariABianchiA, et al. Navigation in orthognathic surgery: 3D accuracy. Facial Plast Surg2015; 31(5): 463–473.
26.
RicottaFCercenelliLBattagliaS, et al. Navigation-guided resection of maxillary tumors: can a new volumetric virtual planning method improve outcomes in terms of control of resection margins?J Craniomaxillofac Surg2018; 46(12): 2240–2247.
27.
TarsitanoABattagliaSRicottaF, et al. Accuracy of CAD/CAM mandibular reconstruction: a three-dimensional, fully virtual outcome evaluation method. J Craniomaxillofac Surg2018; 46(7): 1121–1125.
28.
MazzoniSBianchiASchiaritiG, et al. Computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing cutting guides and customized titanium plates are useful in upper maxilla waferless repositioning. J Oral Maxillofac Surg2015; 73(4): 701–707.
29.
BattagliaSRicottaFMaioloV, et al. Computer-assisted surgery for reconstruction of complex mandibular defects using osteomyocutaneous microvascular fibular free flaps: use of a skin paddle-outlining guide for soft-tissue reconstruction. A technical report. J Craniomaxillofac Surg2019; 47: 293–299.
30.
BadialiGCutoloFRoncariA, et al. Simulation-guided navigation for vector control in pediatric mandibular distraction osteogenesis. J Craniomaxillofac Surg2017; 45(6): 969–980.
31.
EttorreGWeberMSchaafH, et al. Standards for digital photography in cranio-maxillo-facial surgery—part I: basic views and guidelines. J Craniomaxillofac Surg2006; 34: 65–73.
32.
SchaafHStreckbeinPEttorreG, et al. Standards for digital photography in cranio-maxillo-facial surgery—Part II: additional picture sets and avoiding common mistakes. J Craniomaxillofac Surg2006; 34: 366–377.
33.
HuttonTJBuxtonBFHammondP. Dense surface point distribution models of the human face. In: Proceedings IEEE workshop on mathematical methods in biomedical image analysis (MMBIA 2001), Kauai, HI, 9–10 December 2001, p. 153. New York: IEEE.
34.
IsmailSFHMossJP. The three-dimensional effects of orthodontic treatment on the facial soft tissues—a preliminary study. Br Dent J2002; 192(2): 104–108.
35.
KauCHZhurovARichmondS, et al. The 3-dimensional construction of the average 11-year-old child face: a clinical evaluation and application. J Oral Maxillofac Surg2006; 64(7): 1086–1092.
36.
MadsenDLüthiMSchneiderA, et al. Probabilistic joint face-skull modelling for facial reconstruction. In: 2018 IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, Salt Lake City, UT, 18–23 June 2018, pp. 5295–5303. New York: IEEE.
37.
LüthiMForsterAGerigT, et al. Chapter 7—shape modeling using Gaussian process morphable models. In: ZhengGLiSSzékelyG (eds) Statistical shape and deformation analysis. London: Academic Press, 2017, pp. 165–191.
38.
PaysanPLüthiMAlbrechtT, et al. Face reconstruction from skull shapes and physical attributes. In: DenzlerJNotniGSüßeH (eds) Pattern recognition. Berlin: Springer, 2009, pp. 232–241.
39.
ClaesPVandermeulenDDe GreefS, et al. Computerized craniofacial reconstruction: conceptual framework and review. Forensic Sci Int2010; 201(1–3): 138–145.
40.
DuanFHuangDTianY, et al. 3D face reconstruction from skull by regression modeling in shape parameter spaces. Neurocomputing2015; 151: 674–682.
41.
BadialiGFerrariVCutoloF, et al. Augmented reality as an aid in maxillofacial surgery: validation of a wearable system allowing maxillary repositioning. J Craniomaxillofac Surg2014; 42(8): 1970–1976.
42.
BadialiGCutoloFCercenelliL, et al. The VOSTARS project: hybrid video and optical see through augmented reality surgical system for maxillofacial surgery. In: Proceedings of IFSCC congress, Munich, 18–21 September 2018.
43.
MaasBDPJPluijmersBIKnoopsPGM, et al. Using principal component analysis to describe the midfacial deformities in patients with craniofacial microsomia. J Craniomaxillofac Surg2018; 46(12): 2032–2041.
