Ultrasound-Guided Navigation System for Orthognathic Surgery

  • Beatriz PaniaguaEmail author
  • Dženan Zukic
  • Ricardo Ortiz
  • Stephen Aylward
  • Brent Golden
  • Tung Nguyen
  • Andinet Enquobahrie
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9365)


Around 1–2 % of the US population has craniofacial deformities severe enough to be disabling and stigmatizing, and could benefit from orthognathic surgery. This surgery involves repositioning the jaws, due to the unique features of each patient’s teeth, jaws, and joint. Approximately 20 % of patients who had mandibular advancement surgery experience moderate relapse 1–5 years after surgery. We believe ultrasound is a promising imaging technology for orthognathic surgery guidance that can assist surgeons to visualize the condyle/ramus segment in order to guide it into its pre-surgical, biologically stable position. This paper explores the role of 3D ultrasound imaging as a real-time surgical guidance to improve treatment outcomes for orthognathic surgery. This paper shows our work designing a 3D ultrasound volume reconstruction system and our results demonstrating its ability to capture the bony structures of the mandible, compared with those structures reconstructed from pre-surgical Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT).


Ultrasound Computer guided interventions Orthognathic surgery Cone beam computed tomography 



Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Institute of Dental & Craniofacial Research of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number R43DE024334. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.


  1. 1.
    Bailey, L.J., Duong, H.L., Proffit, W.R.: Surgical Class III treatment: long-term stability and patient perceptions of treatment outcome. Int. J. Adult Orthodon. Orthognath. Surg. 13, 35–44 (1998)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rankin, M., Borah, G.L.: Perceived functional impact of abnormal facial appearance. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 111, 2140–6; discussion 2147–8 (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Phillips, C., Bennett, M.E., Broder, H.L.: Dentofacial disharmony: psychological status of patients seeking treatment consultation. Angle Orthod. 68, 547–556 (1998)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Xia, J., Ip, H.H., Samman, N., Wang, D., Kot, C.S., Yeung, R.W., Tideman, H.: Computer-assisted three-dimensional surgical planning and simulation: 3D virtual osteotomy. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 29, 11–17 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Xia, J.J., Gateno, J., Teichgraeber, J.F., Christensen, A.M., Lasky, R.E., Lemoine, J.J., Liebschner, M.A.K.: Accuracy of the computer-aided surgical simulation (CASS) system in the treatment of patients with complex craniomaxillofacial deformity: A pilot study. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 65, 248–254 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cevidanes, L.H.C., Tucker, S., Styner, M., Kim, H., Chapuis, J., Reyes, M., Proffit, W., Turvey, T., Jaskolka, M.: Three-dimensional surgical simulation. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial Orthop. 138, 361–371 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hsu, S.S.-P., Gateno, J., Bell, R.B., Hirsch, D.L., Markiewicz, M.R., Teichgraeber, J.F., Zhou, X., Xia, J.J.: Accuracy of a computer-aided surgical simulation protocol for orthognathic surgery: a prospective multicenter study. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 71, 128–142 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bell, R.B.: Computer planning and intraoperative navigation in orthognathic surgery. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 69, 592–605 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Proffit, W.R., Fields, H.W., Moray, L.J.: Prevalence of malocclusion and orthodontic treatment need in the United States: estimates from the NHANES III survey. Int. J. Adult Orthodon. Orthognath. Surg. 13, 97–106 (1998)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Trawitzki, L.V.V., Dantas, R.O., Elias-Júnior, J., Mello-Filho, F.V.: Masseter muscle thickness three years after surgical correction of class III dentofacial deformity. Arch. Oral Biol. 56, 799–803 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Stefanoff, V., Hausamen, J.E., van den Berghe, P.: Ultrasound imaging of the TMJ disc in asymptomatic volunteers. Preliminary Rep. J. Craniomaxillofac. Surg. 20, 337–340 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Landes, C.A., Sterz, M.: Evaluation of condylar translation by sonography versus axiography in orthognathic surgery patients. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 61, 1410–1417 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gateno, J., Miloro, M., Hendler, B.H., Horrow, M.: The use of ultrasound to determine the position of the mandibular condyle. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 51, 1081–6; discussion 1086–7 (1993)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hayashi, T., Ito, J., Koyama, J., Yamada, K.: The accuracy of sonography for evaluation of internal derangement of the temporomandibular joint in asymptomatic elementary school children: comparison with MR and CT. AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol. 22, 728–734 (2001)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dolphin ImagingGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
  17. 17.
  18. 18.
  19. 19.
    Lorensen, W.E., Cline, H.E.: Marching cubes: A high resolution 3D surface construction algorithm. ACM SIGGRAPH Comput. Graph. 21, 163–169 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Beatriz Paniagua
    • 1
    Email author
  • Dženan Zukic
    • 2
  • Ricardo Ortiz
    • 2
  • Stephen Aylward
    • 2
  • Brent Golden
    • 3
  • Tung Nguyen
    • 3
  • Andinet Enquobahrie
    • 2
  1. 1.Departments of Psychiatry, Computer Science and OrthodonticsUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillChapel HillUSA
  2. 2.Kitware Inc.CarborroUSA
  3. 3.School of DentistryUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillChapel HillUSA

Personalised recommendations