Feasibility study of CAD/CAM drill guides and implants improved outcomes in zygomatic-maxillary-orbital fractures, suggesting better precision and efficiency.
Background: Midfacial trauma involving the zygomatic-maxillary-orbital (ZMO) complex poses significant reconstructive challenges due to anatomical complexity and the necessity for high-precision alignment. Traditional manual reduction techniques often result in inconsistent outcomes, necessitating revisions. Methods: This feasibility study presents two clinical cases treated using a novel, fully digital workflow incorporating computer-aided design and manufacturing (CAD/CAM) of patient-specific osteosynthesis plates and surgical drill guides. Following virtual fracture reduction and implant design, drill guides and implants were fabricated using selective laser melting. Surgical procedures included intraoral and transconjunctival approaches with intraoperative 3D imaging (mobile C-arm CT) to verify implant positioning. Postoperative results were compared to the virtual plan through image fusion. Results: Both cases demonstrated precise fit and anatomical restoration. The “one-position-fits-only” orbital implant design enabled highly accurate orbital wall reconstruction. Key procedural refinements between cases included enhanced interdisciplinary collaboration and improved guide designs, resulting in decreased planning-to-surgery intervals (<7 days) and seamless intraoperative application. Image fusion confirmed near-identical congruence between planned and achieved outcomes. Conclusion: The presented method demonstrates that fully digital, CAD/CAM-based midface reconstruction is feasible in the primary trauma setting. The technique offers reproducible precision, reduced intraoperative time, and improved functional and aesthetic outcomes. It may represent a paradigm shift in trauma care, particularly for complex ZMO fractures. Broader clinical adoption appears viable as production speed and workflow integration continue to improve.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ebeling et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: