Comparison of different 3D reconstruction software tools in preoperative modeling for cranio-maxillofacial surgery

Abstract

Aim: This study evaluates the application of three-dimensional (3D) reconstruction technology in cranio-maxillofacial surgery, focusing on its ability to provide accurate anatomical data and essential support for preoperative planning.

Methods: A comparative analysis was conducted using three commonly utilized 3D reconstruction software programs: 3D Slicer, ProPlan CMF, and Mimics. Each was assessed based on modeling accuracy, operational efficiency, and functional specialization. Data were collected and analyzed to identify the strengths and weaknesses of each software in different surgical contexts.

Results: The findings demonstrate that all three software programs provide consistent modeling accuracy. However, significant differences were observed in terms of operational efficiency and functional specialization, which influence their applicability in various scenarios. Specifically, 3D Slicer excels in flexibility, ProPlan CMF in cranio-maxillofacial applications, and Mimics in precision and comprehensive functionality.

Conclusion: 3D reconstruction technology has significant potential for optimizing preoperative planning in plastic surgery, especially in cranio-maxillofacial surgery. This study offers critical insights into the selection and optimization of 3D reconstruction software, paving the way for more effective and tailored surgical planning. Future research may focus on integrating AI-driven tools to enhance operational efficiency and broaden the application scope of 3D reconstruction in cranio-maxillofacial surgery.

Keywords

Cranio-maxillofacial surgery / plastic surgery / digital modeling / 3D software / mandibular angle osteotomy / preoperative design

References

[1] Gill DK,Rawat A.3D modelling and printing of craniofacial implant template.RPJ2019;25:397-403

[2] Tel A,De Martino M,Sembronio S.Systematic review of the software used for virtual surgical planning in craniomaxillofacial surgery over the last decade.Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg2023;52:775-86

[3] Hwang K,Lee WJ,Lee SI.A split ostectomy of mandibular body and angle reduction.J Craniofac Surg2004;15:341-6

[4] Kane AA,Chen YR,Noordhoff MS.The course of the inferior alveolar nerve in the normal human mandibular ramus and in patients presenting for cosmetic reduction of the mandibular angles.Plast Reconstr Surg2000;106:1162-74

[5] Schicho K,Seemann R.Accuracy of treatment planning based on stereolithography in computer assisted surgery.Med Phys2006;33:3408-17

[6] Andreucci CA,Jorge RN.Biomechanics of a novel 3D mandibular osteotomy design.Designs2024;8:57

[7] Ganga K.State-of-the-art management for challenging complications in head and neck surgery.Plast Aesthet Res2023;10:69

[8] Cui J,Hu J,Luo E.The effect of different reduction mandibuloplasty types on lower face width and morphology.Aesthetic Plast Surg2008;32:593-8

[9] Ye N,Zhu S,Lai W.The accuracy of computer image-guided template for mandibular angle ostectomy.Aesthetic Plast Surg2015;39:117-23

[10] Fu X,Girod S.Standardized protocol for virtual surgical plan and 3-dimensional surgical template-assisted single-stage mandible contour surgery.Ann Plast Surg2017;79:236-42

[11] He D,Li J,Luo E.Clinical feasibility and efficiency of a 3-dimensional printed surgical template for mandibular angle osteotomy and mandibular angle splitting osteotomy.Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg2018;56:594-9

[12] Zhang C,Xu JJ.Application of the 3D digital ostectomy template (DOT) in mandibular angle ostectomy (MAO).J Craniomaxillofac Surg2018;46:1821-7

[13] Wu G,Shangguan W.The accuracy of a patient-specific three-dimensional digital ostectomy template for mandibular angle ostectomy.Aesthet Surg J2022;42:447-57

[14] Jin T,Gui L,Yu B.Computer-assisted design of sequential surgical procedure for oblique facial clefts with mandibular outer cortex autografts.J Craniofac Surg2015;26:373-7

[15] Lin HH,Wang CH,Lo LJ.Three-dimensional computer-assisted orthognathic surgery: experience of 37 patients.Ann Plast Surg2015;74:S118-26

[16] Ritschl LM,Fichter A.Functional outcome of CAD/CAM-assisted versus conventional microvascular, fibular free flap reconstruction of the mandible: a retrospective study of 30 cases.J Reconstr Microsurg2017;33:281-91

[17] Melnik AK.A cephalometric study of mandibular asymmetry in a longitudinally followed sample of growing children.Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop1992;101:355-66

[18] Cha J,Ryu J.Does mandible ramus height asymmetry affect postoperative skeletal stability in orthognathic surgery patients?.Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg2024;46:32 PMCID:PMC11368883

[19] Zhang C,Wang L.Three-dimensional analysis of hard and soft tissue changes in skeletal class II patients with high mandibular plane angle undergoing surgery.Sci Rep2024;14:2519 PMCID:PMC10827781

[20] Jiang N,Khadka A.Total or partial inferior border ostectomy for mandibular contouring: indications and outcomes.J Craniomaxillofac Surg2012;40:e277-84

[21] Mao X,Niu F.Three-dimensional analysis of mandibular angle classification and aesthetic evaluation of the lower face in Chinese female adults.Ann Plast Surg2018;81:12-7

[22] Qiao J,Fu X.Assessment of a novel standardized training system for mandibular contour surgeries.JAMA Facial Plast Surg2019;21:221-9 PMCID:PMC6537852

[23] Fu X,Niu F.Reduction gonioplasty: bone regeneration and soft tissue response.Ann Plast Surg2016;77:603-8

[24] Fu X,Liu J.Long-term changes in the masseter muscle following reduction gonioplasty.J Craniofac Surg2014;25:1309-12