Realize Medical
Research Library · Independent literature review

Oral & maxillofacial / craniofacial: Does VR surgical planning reduce operating time?

8 Oral & maxillofacial / craniofacial studies in the library address this question.

Oral & maxillofacial / craniofacial: Operating timeBar chart. Oral & maxillofacial / craniofacial: Operating time. Comparative or prospective studies 2, Retrospective studies 1, Reviews 1, Case reports & technical 4.RESEARCH LIBRARY · INDEPENDENT LITERATURE REVIEWOral & maxillofacial / craniofacial:Operating time8 studies in the library, by study designComparative or prospecti…2Retrospective studies1Reviews1Case reports & technical4Positive findingMixedDescriptiveNo significant differenceRealize Medical Research Library · 631 studies · updated 2026-10-03

Where time gains were reported

  • Positive finding
    “The total workflow time for MR technology was significantly shorter compared to the conventional method.”

    Dubron 2025 · Comparative study · n: 10 cases

  • Positive finding
    “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

  • Positive finding
    “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

  • Positive finding
    “Holographic models required less time and cost for fabrication.”

    Cho 2021 · Case report · n: 1 patient

How strong is the evidence?

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.

Study designs: 2 comparative or prospective studies, 1 retrospective study, 1 review and 4 case reports, case series and technical reports.

All 8 studies

Comparative evaluation of mixed reality, CTA-based digital guide, and hand-held Doppler for anterolateral thigh perforator localization in head and neck reconstruction #

Zhu H et al. · International journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery · 2026

Oral & maxillofacial / craniofacial · Comparative study · n: 12 patients

Mixed
“CTA-MR required less preparation time than guide fabrication but a longer intraoperative localization time than guide placement.”

DOIPubMed

Validation of mixed reality in planning orbital reconstruction with patient-specific implants #

Dubron K et al. · Scientific reports · 2025

Oral & maxillofacial / craniofacial · Comparative study · n: 10 cases

Positive finding
“The total workflow time for MR technology was significantly shorter compared to the conventional method.”

DOIPubMedFree full text

Intraoperative Three-dimensional Virtual Reality and Computed Tomographic Guidance in Temporomandibular Joint Arthroplasty of Syndromic Craniofacial Dysostoses #

Bradley D et al. · Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2019

Oral & maxillofacial / craniofacial · Retrospective case series · n: 4 patients

Positive finding
“The average operative time in the traditional CT guidance group was 300 minute versus 134 minutes in the 3D VR group.”

134 minutes

DOIPubMedFree full text

Advanced outcomes of mixed reality usage in orthognathic surgery: a systematic review #

Stevanie C et al. · Maxillofacial plastic and reconstructive surgery · 2024

Oral & maxillofacial / craniofacial · Systematic review

Positive finding
“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.”

DOIPubMedFree full text

Virtual Reality Planning for Mandible Reconstruction: A Case Report #

Banerjee AR et al. · Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2025

Oral & maxillofacial / craniofacial · Case report · n: 1 patient

Descriptive
“VR planning was completed directly by the surgeon without engineer assistance, with a total planning time of 5 minutes.”

5 minutes

DOIPubMedFree full text

Virtual Reality Planning in Reconstructive Surgery for Orbital Prosthetic Rehabilitation Using ImmersiveTouch Platform: Preliminary Report #

Arias-Amezquita E et al. · The Journal of craniofacial surgery · 2024

Oral & maxillofacial / craniofacial · Case series · n: 2 patients

Descriptive
“It takes, on average, 10 minutes to place 4 implants in the virtual reality space.”

10 minutes

DOIPubMed

Same-day Virtual Reality Surgical Planning and Intraoperative Navigation: A New Surgical Workflow for Craniofacial Trauma and Reconstruction #

Mathis S et al. · Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2021

Oral & maxillofacial / craniofacial · Conference abstract

Descriptive
“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

Free full text

Mixed Reality and 3D Printed Models for Planning and Execution of Face Transplantation #

Cho KH et al. · Annals of surgery · 2021

Oral & maxillofacial / craniofacial · Case report · n: 1 patient

Positive finding
“Holographic models required less time and cost for fabrication.”

DOIPubMed

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.