Segmental mandibulectomy MRP MRPrTNM: recurrence cases, SCC: squamous cell carcinoma, Conventional
The two patients shown in Figure 5 clearly exhibited better facial symmetry resulting in an improved esthetic outcome. Quantitatively, the imaging Ty received by the plants was 280 mol -2 -1. Agrobacterium rhizogenes analysis showed that the differential area in the group receiving MRP model-based reconstruction was 9.92 ?104 ?5.30 ?104 (mean ?standard deviation, SD) pixels, while that of the group receiving conventional reconstruction was 1.67 ?105 ?1.02 ?105 pixelsFigure 1 Manual preparation of the reconstruction plate. A: Manual preparation of the titanium reconstruction plate adapted to the medical rapid prototyping (MRP) model. B: The 3D MRP model with the attached prebent reconstruction plate. Plaster MRP models were obtained using powder bed and inkjet head 3D printing.Figure 2 The reconstructive surgical procedure. A: Following mandibulectomy, the prebent reconstruction plate based on the MRP model was fixed on residual bone. B: The free fibular bone and flap was attached to the inner side of the reconstruction plate.Azuma et al. Head Face Medicine 2014, 10:45 http://www.head-face-med.com/content/10/1/Page 5 ofFigure 4 Representative patients treated with conventional reconstructive surgery. A, C: Images of representative patients following conventional reconstructive surgery using the free fibular flap transfer method. B, D: Imaging analysis of the above patients using pantomography.receiving MRP model-based treatment (6.44 ?4.38 degrees) was significantly smaller than that in the group receiving conventional treatment (11.18 ?8.39) (P PubMed ID:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25432023 The absolute value of the area contained by the two contour lines was defined as the differential area. B: Measurement of the differential angle. The mandibular angles from the unaffected and reconstructed mandibles were measured. The absolute value of the difference between the two angles was defined as the differential angle.(Figure 6). The differential area of the MRP group was significantly smaller than that of the conventional group (P PubMed ID:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27741243 3 software (OMS Publisher, Tokorozawa, Japan).Results After resection, the tumor margins were negative for all patients in the study. Representative patients receiving either conventional (Figure 4) or MRP-based (Figure 5) reconstruction are shown for comparison.