Accuracy and reproducibility of virtual cutting guides and 3D-navigation for osteotomies of the mandible and maxilla
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We set out to determine the accuracy of 3D-navigated mandibular and maxillary osteotomies with the ultimate aim to integrate virtual cutting guides and 3D-navigation into ablative and reconstructive head and neck surgery. METHODS: Four surgeons (two attending, two clinical fellows) completed 224 unnavigated and 224 3D-navigated osteotomies on anatomical models according to preoperative 3D plans. The osteotomized bones were scanned and analyzed. RESULTS: Median distance from the virtual plan was 2.1 mm unnavigated (IQR 2.6 mm, ≥3 mm in 33%) and 1.2 mm 3D-navigated (IQR 1.1 mm, ≥3 mm in 6%) (P<0.0001); median pitch was 4.5° unnavigated (IQR 7.1°) and 3.5° 3D-navigated (IQR 4.0°) (P<0.0001); median roll was 7.4° unnavigated (IQR 8.5°) and 2.6° 3D-navigated (IQR 3.8°) (P<0.0001). CONCLUSION: 3D-rendering enables osteotomy navigation. 3 mm is an appropriate planning distance. The next steps are translating virtual cutting guides to free bone flap reconstruction and clinical use.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".