Table 1 Descriptive data of the included studies
From: Accuracy of virtual planning in orthognathic surgery: a systematic review
| Authors, year and country of origin | Type of study | Sample size | Age: mean, SD (variation) | Gender | Type of facial deformity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| De Rio et al. 2017 Italy [35] | Retrospective observational study | N: 49 patients | Mean: 26.4 years |
19 males 30 females |
Angle class II: 16 Angle class III: 20 Open bite: 4 Facial asymmetry: 9 |
| Ritto et al. 2017 Brazil [36] | Retrospective study |
N: 30 patients: CMS group: 15 VSP group: 15 | NA |
CMS group: 8 females 7 males VSP group: 5 females 10 males |
CMS group: 4 skeletal class II malocclusion 11 skeletal class III malocclusion VSP group: 1 skeletal class I malocclusion, 2 presented class II malocclusion, 12 presented class III malocclusion |
| Ho et al. 2017 Taiwan [1] | Prospective case series, A | N: 30 patients |
Mean: 22.4 years Range: (18–26 years) |
22 females 8 males | Class III malocclusion and facial asymmetry |
| Chin et al. 2017 Germany [37] | A comparative study | N: 10 patients |
Mean: 25.3 years Range: (18–41) years |
4 males 6 females |
8 Class III, Prognathism of Mandible 2 Class II retrognathism of Mandible |
| Stokbro et al. 2016 USA [38] | A comparative retrospective study |
N: 30 patients CMS group: 15 VSP group: 15 |
Mean: 23.1 ± 6.8 years Median: 21 years Range: (18–42) years |
10 males 20 females | NA |
| Baan et al. 2016 Netherlands [39] | Prospective study | N: 10 patients |
Mean: 26.5 years Range: (17–45) years |
4 Males 6 Females | Skeletal Class II profile |
| Zhang et al. 2016 China [40] | A comparative retrospective study | N: 30 patients | Range: (19–30) years |
16 males 14 females |
(n = 27) Skeletal class III profile, retrognathia of upper jaw, Prognathia of lower jaw . (n = 3) Skeletal class II profile prognathia of upper jaw Retrognathia of lower jaw. |
| De Rio et al. 2014 Italy [41] | Randomized controlled clinical trial |
N: 20 patients Virtual splint: 10 Classic splint: 10 |
Virtual splint: Range: (21–54) years Classic splint: Range: (24–47) years |
Overall: 10 M, 10 F Virtual splint: 3 M, 7 F Classic splint: 7 M, 3 F |
Class II/class III: NA All asymmetrical |
| Hsu et al. 2013 USA [6] | A Prospective Multicenter Study |
N: 65 patients Houston: 41 Portland: 11 New York: 13 |
Houston: mean 25 range: (15–51) Portland: mean 26.7 range (15–51) NewYork: mean 26.7 range (16–46) |
Houston 23 M, 18 F Portland: 3 M, 8 F New York: 5 M, 8 F | NA |
| Sun et al. 2013 Belgium [7] | Prospective case series | N: 15 patients | NA | NA | NA |
| Zinser et al. 2013 Germany [42] | Non-randomized clinical trial |
N: 28 patients Virtual splint: 8 Classic splint: 10 Surgical navigation: 10 |
Overall: 20.8 ± 4.9 (18–35) years Virtual splint: 21.6 ± 5.45 (19–35) Classic splint: 20.6 ± 2.6 (18–26) Surgical navigation:20.5 ± 4.1(18–32) |
Overall: 15 M, 13 F Virtual splint: 4 M, 4 F Classic splint: 6 M, 4 F Surgical navigation:5 M,5 F |
Overall: 5 class II, 23 class III Virtual splint: 8 class III Classic splint: 4 class II, 6 class III Surgical navigation: 1 class II, 9 class III |
| Centenero and Hernández-Alfaro. 2012, Spain [43] | Prospective case series | N: 16 patients | NA | NA |
9 class II 7 class III |
