13 Oral & maxillofacial / craniofacial studies in the library address this question.
“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
“Holographic models required less time and cost for fabrication.”
Cho 2021 · Case report · n: 1 patient
Of 13 studies with a finding on this question: 6 report a positive finding, 1 mixed, 4 descriptive, 2 no significant difference. These reflect what each study's authors report.
Study designs: 1 randomized trial, 4 comparative or prospective studies, 1 retrospective study, 2 reviews and 5 case reports, case series and technical reports.
Randomized trials: 1 trial on this question; 1 reported a positive finding.
Pargätzi GY et al. · Scientific reports · 2026
Oral & maxillofacial / craniofacial · Randomized crossover · n: 15 participants; 5 CT datasets · Used Elucis
“The VR platform completed segmentation significantly faster”
72 vs 95 min, p = 0.008
Zhu H et al. · International journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery · 2026
Oral & maxillofacial / craniofacial · Comparative study · n: 12 patients
“CTA-MR required less preparation time than guide fabrication but a longer intraoperative localization time than guide placement.”
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
“Among the manual methods, the VR method was faster (15.9 ± 9.0 min) compared to the DS method (21 ± 10.4 min)”
15.9 ± 9.0 vs 21 ± 10.4 min, p = 0.007
Wilkat M et al. · Clinical oral investigations · 2024
Oral & maxillofacial / craniofacial · Comparative study · n: 30 cases
“There was no significant difference in the mean time taken for the experimental cases between the three methods ( p > 0.05).”
p > 0.05
Bradley D et al. · Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2019
Oral & maxillofacial / craniofacial · Retrospective case series · n: 4 patients
“The average operative time in the traditional CT guidance group was 300 minute versus 134 minutes in the 3D VR group.”
134 minutes
Stevanie C et al. · Maxillofacial plastic and reconstructive surgery · 2024
Oral & maxillofacial / craniofacial · Systematic review
“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.”
Dubron K et al. · Journal of clinical medicine · 2023
Oral & maxillofacial / craniofacial · Systematic review
“Preoperative planning time was longer compared to the conventional planning method.”
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
Wilkat M et al. · Journal of personalized medicine · 2023
Oral & maxillofacial / craniofacial · Technical note
“The overall time for this procedure takes less than 10 minutes.”
less than 10 min
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.”
The same question, from the studies in each specialty.
All oral & maxillofacial / craniofacial studiesThis question across specialtiesBrowse the whole library
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.