PURPOSE: The cost of computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) technology has created obstacles for its widespread use despite its several advantages. This study compared the cost of CAD-CAM technology with that of the conventional freehand technique in fibula reshaping for mandibular reconstruction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective comparative study was conducted at the Maxillofacial and Dental Unit of the Fondazione Ca' Granda IRCCS Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico (Milan, Italy). The study compared 15 patients in the CAD-CAM group with 10 patients in the conventional freehand group. Only benign pathologic lesions that required at least 3 fibular segments for reconstruction were included. The consumption of resources was estimated using micro-costing analysis (activity-based costing approach). RESULTS: The CAD-CAM group included 15 patients (7 men and 8 women) with a mean age of 42.2 ± 1.5 years, and the conventional freehand group included 10 patients (4 men and 6 women) with a mean age of 40.8 ± 0.9 years. Although CAD-CAM was a statistically expensive procedure in the perioperative phase (P < .0001), no significant difference was shown in total health care costs between the 2 groups (P = .98). CONCLUSION: CAD-CAM technology had a comparable expense to the conventional freehand technique, specifically for defects requiring at least 3 fibular segments.

Computer-Aided Design and Computer-Aided Manufacturing Versus Conventional Free Fibula Flap Reconstruction in Benign Mandibular Lesions: An Italian Cost Analysis / A.R. Bolzoni, E. Segna, G.A. Beltramini, A.H. Sweed, A.B. Gianni, A. Baj. - In: JOURNAL OF ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY. - ISSN 0278-2391. - (2019). [Epub ahead of print] [10.1016/j.joms.2019.03.003]

Computer-Aided Design and Computer-Aided Manufacturing Versus Conventional Free Fibula Flap Reconstruction in Benign Mandibular Lesions: An Italian Cost Analysis

Bolzoni A. R.;Beltramini G. A.;Gianni A. B.;Baj A.
2019

Abstract

PURPOSE: The cost of computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) technology has created obstacles for its widespread use despite its several advantages. This study compared the cost of CAD-CAM technology with that of the conventional freehand technique in fibula reshaping for mandibular reconstruction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective comparative study was conducted at the Maxillofacial and Dental Unit of the Fondazione Ca' Granda IRCCS Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico (Milan, Italy). The study compared 15 patients in the CAD-CAM group with 10 patients in the conventional freehand group. Only benign pathologic lesions that required at least 3 fibular segments for reconstruction were included. The consumption of resources was estimated using micro-costing analysis (activity-based costing approach). RESULTS: The CAD-CAM group included 15 patients (7 men and 8 women) with a mean age of 42.2 ± 1.5 years, and the conventional freehand group included 10 patients (4 men and 6 women) with a mean age of 40.8 ± 0.9 years. Although CAD-CAM was a statistically expensive procedure in the perioperative phase (P < .0001), no significant difference was shown in total health care costs between the 2 groups (P = .98). CONCLUSION: CAD-CAM technology had a comparable expense to the conventional freehand technique, specifically for defects requiring at least 3 fibular segments.
Settore MED/29 - Chirurgia Maxillofacciale
mar-2019
Article (author)
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
1-s2.0-S0278239119302605-main.pdf

non disponibili

Tipologia: Publisher's version/PDF
Dimensione 377.07 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
377.07 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia
Pubblicazioni consigliate

Caricamento pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: http://hdl.handle.net/2434/658290
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 4
  • Scopus 6
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 4
social impact