The library holds 29 Oral & maxillofacial / craniofacial studies, published 2017–2026; 14 of them since 2024.
Study designs: 1 randomized trial, 5 comparative or prospective studies, 2 retrospective studies, 1 survey or user study, 6 reviews and 14 case reports, case series and technical reports.
Quoted from the studies. Each question lists the studies that report on it.
Of 6 studies with a finding on this question: 4 report a positive finding, 2 descriptive. These reflect what each study's authors report.
“The mixed reality environment provides an intuitive and flexible experience for setting surgical occlusion, eliminating the need for costly 3D-printed physical models or the automatic calculations required by other virtual occlusion methods, thereby offering maximum freedom.”
Wilkat 2024 · Comparative study · n: 30 cases
“Three-dimensional VR is a useful preoperative planning and intraoperative guidance tool.”
Bradley 2019 · Retrospective case series · n: 4 patients
“VR surgical planning is feasible and provides several advantages over traditional surgical planning approaches, such as improved scan visualization, simplified user interface, and shorter planning sessions.”
Banerjee 2025 · Case report · n: 1 patient
Of 7 studies with a finding on this question: 5 report a positive finding, 1 descriptive, 1 no significant difference. These reflect what each study's authors report.
“In planning, immersive three-dimensional visualisation improves spatial understanding and supports waferless, guide-based, and patient-specific workflows.”
Klimaszewski 2026 · Narrative review
“This review found consensus that VR/AR in plastic and craniomaxillofacial surgery has been used to enhance surgeons' knowledge of patient-specific anatomy and potentially facilitated decreased intraoperative time via preoperative planning.”
Kaplan 2023 · Systematic review
“They provided both comprehensive visualization of 3D spatial relationships and novel means to perform VSP and virtual face transplantation by interacting with and manipulating patient-specific, anatomic holograms.”
Cho 2021 · Case report · n: 1 patient
Of 8 studies with a finding on this question: 4 report a positive finding, 1 mixed, 3 descriptive. These reflect what each study's authors report.
“The total workflow time for MR technology was significantly shorter compared to the conventional method.”
Dubron 2025 · Comparative study · n: 10 cases
“The average operative time in the traditional CT guidance group was 300 minute versus 134 minutes in the 3D VR group.”
Bradley 2019 · Retrospective case series · n: 4 patients
“MR technology significantly improves OGS planning efficiency by providing pre-surgical information and serving as an intraoperative navigation tool, reducing surgical time without compromising outcomes.”
Stevanie 2024 · Systematic review
Oral & maxillofacial / craniofacial studies on this questionAll specialties
Of 13 studies with a finding on this question: 12 report a positive finding, 1 descriptive. These reflect what each study's authors report.
“The accuracy of perforator localization was 75.7% for HHD, 85.3% for CTA-guide, and 91.2% for CTA-MR; sensitivity was 87.5%, 90.6%, and 96.9%, respectively.”
Zhu 2026 · Comparative study · n: 12 patients
“Between modalities, no significant differences were found; HD and RMSE were 2.95 ± 0.94 mm and 1.28 ± 0.49 mm.”
Tsuchiya 2025 · Comparative study · n: 11 orbital fractures
“Moreover, treatment planning using MR was significantly more accurate (p = .028), with participants reporting a higher mean global satisfaction score compared to the conventional group (80.6% vs. 72.5%).”
Dubron 2025 · Comparative study · n: 10 cases
Of 4 studies with a finding on this question: 1 report a positive finding, 3 descriptive. These reflect what each study's authors report.
“VR-based educational tools provided better visualization and understanding of craniofacial trauma compared to conventional 2- or 3-dimensional images.”
Dubron 2023 · Systematic review
“In addition, VR glasses seem to be a promising innovation to help in the training of surgical residents and to teach students.”
Bartella 2019 · Survey/user study · n: 3 cases
“Virtual reality/AR technology offers significant potential in various aspects, including student education, resident evaluation, surgical planning, and overall surgical implementation.”
Stucki 2024 · Narrative review
Of 3 studies with a finding on this question: 1 report a positive finding, 2 descriptive. These reflect what each study's authors report.
“In patient communication, patient-specific VR, AR, and MR visualisations improve understanding and satisfaction and reduce anxiety during informed consent.”
Klimaszewski 2026 · Narrative review
“Patients allowed to interact with VR have been engaged, which would aid their treatment acceptance and patient education.”
Arias-Amezquita 2024 · Case series · n: 2 patients
“The data sets were demonstrated to the patient in mixed reality for immersive patient education and enhanced shared decision making.”
Wilkat 2023 · Technical note · n: 1 patient
Of 5 studies with a finding on this question: 1 mixed, 4 descriptive. These reflect what each study's authors report.
“XR offers tangible benefits across the OMFS pathway, yet evidence is constrained by small heterogeneous studies, registration and ergonomic challenges, novelty bias, and limited long-term clinical data.”
Klimaszewski 2026 · Narrative review
“These preliminary findings suggest that NED-based preshaping may be feasible; however, larger studies are required to confirm whether VR can achieve performance comparable to 3D-printed models.”
Tsuchiya 2025 · Comparative study · n: 11 orbital fractures
“However, its widespread adoption in practice is hindered by factors such as the need for further research, cost concerns, unfamiliarity among current educators, and the necessity for technological improvement.”
Stucki 2024 · Narrative review
Pargätzi GY et al. · Scientific reports · 2026
Oral & maxillofacial / craniofacial · Randomized crossover · n: 15 participants; 5 CT datasets · Used Elucis
“Both platforms received equivalent ratings for anatomical structure recognition and physical fatigue.”
Zhu H et al. · International journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery · 2026
Oral & maxillofacial / craniofacial · Comparative study · n: 12 patients
“The accuracy of perforator localization was 75.7% for HHD, 85.3% for CTA-guide, and 91.2% for CTA-MR; sensitivity was 87.5%, 90.6%, and 96.9%, respectively.”
91.2%
Tsuchiya M et al. · Applied Sciences · 2025
Oral & maxillofacial / craniofacial · Comparative study · n: 11 orbital fractures
“Between modalities, no significant differences were found; HD and RMSE were 2.95 ± 0.94 mm and 1.28 ± 0.49 mm.”
Dubron K et al. · Scientific reports · 2025
Oral & maxillofacial / craniofacial · Comparative study · n: 10 cases
“The total workflow time for MR technology was significantly shorter compared to the conventional method.”
Gruber LJ et al. · Expert Systems with Applications · 2024
Oral & maxillofacial / craniofacial · Comparative study · Used Elucis
Wilkat M et al. · Clinical oral investigations · 2024
Oral & maxillofacial / craniofacial · Comparative study · n: 30 cases
“The mixed reality environment provides an intuitive and flexible experience for setting surgical occlusion, eliminating the need for costly 3D-printed physical models or the automatic calculations required by other virtual occlusion methods, thereby offering maximum freedom.”
Hsiao YC et al. · Symmetry · 2021
Oral & maxillofacial / craniofacial · Retrospective cohort
“There was no significant difference, except the symmetry index of the anterior deviation angle between the virtual and mixed reality planning in the 3D asymmetry assessment.”
Bradley D et al. · Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2019
Oral & maxillofacial / craniofacial · Retrospective case series · n: 4 patients
“No statistically significant differences were found among the age, complications, or inpatient hospitalization times.”
Bartella AK et al. · The British journal of oral & maxillofacial surgery · 2019
Oral & maxillofacial / craniofacial · Survey/user study · n: 3 cases
“In addition, VR glasses seem to be a promising innovation to help in the training of surgical residents and to teach students.”
Klimaszewski S et al. · International Journal of Innovative Technologies in Social Science · 2026
Oral & maxillofacial / craniofacial · Narrative review
“In planning, immersive three-dimensional visualisation improves spatial understanding and supports waferless, guide-based, and patient-specific workflows.”
Stucki J et al. · Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology and oral radiology · 2024
Oral & maxillofacial / craniofacial · Narrative review
“Virtual reality/AR technology offers significant potential in various aspects, including student education, resident evaluation, surgical planning, and overall surgical implementation.”
Stevanie C et al. · Maxillofacial plastic and reconstructive surgery · 2024
Oral & maxillofacial / craniofacial · Systematic review
“The main results indicated that the use of MR technology in OGS led to high accuracy and time reduction as primary outcomes and cost-effectiveness and skill improvement as secondary outcomes.”
Kaplan N et al. · Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
Oral & maxillofacial / craniofacial · Systematic review
“This review found consensus that VR/AR in plastic and craniomaxillofacial surgery has been used to enhance surgeons' knowledge of patient-specific anatomy and potentially facilitated decreased intraoperative time via preoperative planning.”
Dubron K et al. · Journal of clinical medicine · 2023
Oral & maxillofacial / craniofacial · Systematic review
“AR was demonstrated to ameliorate the accuracy and precision of the incision and enable the better identification of deep anatomical tissues in real time.”
Ayoub A, Pulijala Y · BMC oral health · 2019
Oral & maxillofacial / craniofacial · Narrative review
“Virtual planning improved the accuracy of inserting dental implants using either a statistic guidance or dynamic navigation.”
Faray de Paiva L et al. · arXiv (Cornell University) · 2025
Oral & maxillofacial / craniofacial · Preprint (technical development)
“A user study with a public craniofacial CT dataset demonstrated the tool's foundational viability, achieving a System Usability Scale (SUS) score of 66, within the expected range for medical applications.”
66
Bou Zeid N et al. · The Journal of craniofacial surgery · 2025
Oral & maxillofacial / craniofacial · Case series · n: 2 patients
Banerjee AR et al. · Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2025
Oral & maxillofacial / craniofacial · Case report · n: 1 patient
“VR planning was completed directly by the surgeon without engineer assistance, with a total planning time of 5 minutes.”
5 minutes
Arias-Amezquita E et al. · The Journal of craniofacial surgery · 2024
Oral & maxillofacial / craniofacial · Case series · n: 2 patients
“It takes, on average, 10 minutes to place 4 implants in the virtual reality space.”
10 minutes
Niloy I et al. · Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery · 2024
Oral & maxillofacial / craniofacial · Case series · n: 2 patients
“The average differences in the positioning of the condylar and fossa prosthesis are 1.252 ± 0.269 mm and 1.393 ± 0.335 mm, respectively.”
1.252 ± 0.269 mm
Ulbrich M et al. · JMIR serious games · 2023
Oral & maxillofacial / craniofacial · Crossover study · n: 6 novices; 13 fibulae + 13 os coxae each (312 models)
Wilkat M et al. · Journal of personalized medicine · 2023
Oral & maxillofacial / craniofacial · Technical note · n: 1 patient
“The results could be visualized by mixed reality devices to further enhance surgical decision-making.”
Wilkat M et al. · Journal of personalized medicine · 2023
Oral & maxillofacial / craniofacial · Technical note
Han JJ et al. · The Journal of craniofacial surgery · 2022
Oral & maxillofacial / craniofacial · Technical note
“In conclusion, the authors integrated the 3 technologies and constructed a new digital surgical procedure to improve surgical accuracy and simplify the procedure comparing with traditional surgery.”
Mathis S et al. · Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2021
Oral & maxillofacial / craniofacial · Conference abstract
“Data import, segmentation, and reduction of fractures within VR took on average approximately 5 minutes, and transfer of the plan to the navigation platform took 4 minutes.”
5 minutes
Cho KH et al. · Annals of surgery · 2021
Oral & maxillofacial / craniofacial · Case report · n: 1 patient
“Holographic models required less time and cost for fabrication.”
Bartella AK et al. · International journal of computerized dentistry · 2021
Oral & maxillofacial / craniofacial · Case report · n: 1 patient
“MR showed good results during preoperative planning for a surgically extensive case in terms of displaying 3D structures and enhancing the physical and virtual interactions among the examiners.”
Cho K et al. · Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery - Global Open · 2019
Oral & maxillofacial / craniofacial · Conference abstract
“Holograms provided enhanced visualization of 3-dimensional spatial relationships and depth perception within and between anatomic structures which could not be observed by the conventional 2-dimensional display monitors.”
Cho K et al. · Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery - Global Open · 2017
Oral & maxillofacial / craniofacial · Conference abstract
“There was no significant bias between two methods used and 95% of the values were within the limits of the agreement.”
95%
Summarises published research on VR/AR surgical planning across all platforms. Not product labelling. For Elucis indications see /elucis.
Intended for healthcare professionals.
Summaries and quotes describe each study's methods and the findings its authors report. They are not claims by Realize Medical and may contain errors: please read the original paper. Inclusion is not an endorsement of any product or use.