Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, General Hospital of Shenyang Military Command, No. 83 Wenhua Road, Shenhe District, Shenyang, Liaoning 110840, PR China; State Key Laboratory of Military Stomatology, Tissue Engineering Center, School of Stomatology, Fourth Military Medical University, 145 Changle West Road, Xincheng District, Xi'an, Shaanxi 710032, PR China.
State Key Laboratory of Military Stomatology, Tissue Engineering Center, School of Stomatology, Fourth Military Medical University, 145 Changle West Road, Xincheng District, Xi'an, Shaanxi 710032, PR China.
J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2017 Aug;45(8):1227-1235. doi: 10.1016/j.jcms.2017.04.009. Epub 2017 Apr 22.
In order to get predictable reassembling and higher accuracy in the reconstruction of the mandible, we designed three kinds of fibula cutting guides: (1) Two-edge wide groove guide (WGG); (2) Two-edge narrow groove guide (NGG); and (3) One-edge guide (OEG). The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of fibula remodelling using the three kinds of fibula cutting guides above in a simulation procedure in vitro.
Cutting and reshaping of fibula analogs were guided by the three kinds of guides mentioned above. Then the fibula segments were glued together and scanned with CT, and finally the 3D accuracy of fibula reshaping was compared to the virtual plan.
Comparisons were made with regard to planned versus actual fibula segment length and angle projections in 3 planes. There were no significant differences in length change among the WGG group, NGG group and OEG group. There were very significant differences in angle projections in 3 planes between every 2 of the 3 groups.
3 kinds of guides do not affect the length of fibula segments. Two-edge narrow groove guides (NGG) caused the smallest error among the 3 kinds of guides. The error caused by two-edge wide groove guide (WGG) was similar to that caused by one-edge guide (OEG). The conclusion was in consistent with the referred groove-restriction-effect in the section of discussion.
We suggest that the two-edge narrow groove guide (NGG) is the superior choice for fibula cutting in reconstruction of the mandible.
为了实现下颌骨重建中可预测的重新组装和更高的准确性，我们设计了三种腓骨切割导板：（1）双边宽槽导板（WGG）；（2）双边窄槽导板（NGG）；和（3）单边导板（OEG）。本研究的目的是比较三种腓骨切割导板在体外模拟程序中对腓骨重塑的准确性。
使用上述三种导板引导腓骨模拟物的切割和重塑。然后将腓骨段粘合并进行 CT 扫描，最后将腓骨重塑的 3D 准确性与虚拟计划进行比较。
比较了计划与实际腓骨段长度和三个平面上的角度投影。在 WGG 组、NGG 组和 OEG 组之间，长度变化没有显著差异。在三个平面上的角度投影之间存在非常显著的差异。
三种导板不影响腓骨段的长度。双边窄槽导板（NGG）在三种导板中引起的误差最小。双边宽槽导板（WGG）引起的误差与单边导板（OEG）引起的误差相似。这一结论与讨论部分提到的槽限制效应一致。
我们建议在重建下颌骨时，双边窄槽导板（NGG）是腓骨切割的首选。
