Evaluation of use of acrylic resin-based surgical guide in the function and quality of life provided by mandibular prostheses with microvascular free fibula flap: A four-year, randomized, controlled trial

Computer-Aided Design and Manufacturing versus Conventional Surgical Planning for Head and Neck Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

“…All other studies were only included in the systematic review, http://links.lww.com/PRS/E498.) There was one prospective Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Level II study, 7 and the remaining 26 studies were Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Level III retrospective case series. 3–28 All 27 articles were included in our systematic review; however, only 12 of these contained sufficient data to be included in our forest plot analyses.…”

“…3), which is corroborated in the extant literature. 3,4,7,8,13,15,16,[20][21][22][23][25][26][27][28]32 In fact, all included articles except two identified a shorter mean operative time in CAD/CAM cases. Of those three studies, one described a prolonged harvest time secondary to inexperience with the CAD/ CAM cutting guides, and the other two did not find the time difference to be statistically significant in their finalized results.…”

“…29 Brandão et al identified a higher dental restoration rate in the CAD/CAM group (86.4 percent) than in patients receiving traditional, staged osseointegrated dental implants (50 percent; p = 0.015). 7…”

“…Multiple authors used preoperative and postoperative axiographic analysis or radiologic measurements to quantify reconstructive accuracy. [7][8][9][10]12,14,[18][19][20][21]23 Hanasono and Skoracki compared preoperative and postoperative landmarks of mandibles reconstructed with CAD/CAM versus conventional methods and showed statistically significant improved accuracy with CAD/CAM reconstruction. 4 Their findings supported the use of CAD/ heterogeneity was high because, as a result of the small number of studies available, we chose to include all articles detailing CAD/CAM versus conventional maxillofacial reconstruction, regardless of the specific technique used, disease process, patient population, flap type, or defect location.…”

“…29 Brandão et al identified a higher dental restoration rate in the CAD/CAM group (86.4 percent) than in patients receiving traditional, staged osseointegrated dental implants (50 percent; p = 0.015). 7 The most consistently cited barrier to adopting CAD/CAM is cost. Although this technology does represent an added expense, most proponents believe this is justified by a reduction in operating room time, expensive complications, reoperations, and better postoperative function.…”