Translational and rotational accuracy of the mandibular proximal segment after virtual surgical planning-guided bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy in skeletal Class III patients.
Oct 2026· Journal of cranio-maxillo-facial surgery : official publication of the European Association for Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery· Vol 54 12, pp.
109913
· 0 citations· 25 references
Medicine
Abstract
Previous studies on proximal segment accuracy after bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy have mainly focused on condylar position. This retrospective cohort study evaluated landmark-specific and direction-sensitive proximal segment discrepancies relative to the virtual surgical plan in 108 skeletal Class III patients who underwent virtual surgical planning-guided orthognathic surgery with bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy. Postoperative cone-beam computed tomography data obtained within 1 week after surgery were superimposed on the planned dataset. Five landmarks were evaluated on each proximal segment: condyle, coronoid process, anterior ramus, posterior ramus, and cutting edge. Translational discrepancies were assessed using signed X-, Y-, and Z-axis differences and three-dimensional (3D) discrepancies, and signed angular discrepancies in pitch, roll, and yaw were analyzed. Condylar landmarks showed relatively small 3D discrepancies, whereas larger discrepancies were observed at the posterior ramus and cutting edge landmarks, resulting in an overall 3D discrepancy of 1.94 ± 0.54 mm. Landmark-specific signed analysis demonstrated medial convergence of the coronoid processes, lateral deviation of the posterior ramus landmarks, and anterior deviation of the anterior ramus, posterior ramus, and cutting edge landmarks. These findings suggest that condylar accuracy alone may underestimate residual proximal segment discrepancy and support careful intraoperative assessment of passive proximal segment seating when proximal-distal segment interference is suspected.
This publication proposes a definition and a classification of agile software development approaches and analyses ten software development methods that can be characterized as being "agile" against the defined criterion.
P. Abrahamsson, O. Salo, Jussi Ronkainen et al.· arXiv.org· 727 citations· ⚡54
The study shows that agile practices improve both informal and formal communication, but indicates that, in larger development situations involving multiple external stakeholders, a mismatch of adequate communication mechanisms can sometimes even hinder the communication.
M. Pikkarainen, Jukka Haikara, O. Salo et al.· Empirical Software Engineeri...· 401 citations· ⚡48
The results indicate that software engineering work practices are chosen opportunistically, adapted and configured to provide value under the constrains imposed by the startup context.
Nicolò Paternoster, Carmine Giardino, M. Unterkalmsteiner et al.· Information and Software Tec...· 394 citations· ⚡54
The perception of the impact of agile methods is predominantly positive, and several challenge areas were discovered, but based on this study, agile methods are here to stay.
M. Laanti, O. Salo, P. Abrahamsson· Information and Software Tec...· 260 citations· ⚡20
Related blog posts
MIT News · Artificial Intelligence· news.mit.eduOct 8, 2026
Jennifer Neville did not want to go into computer science—but that’s exactly where she landed. Neville discusses the starts and stops that led to her professional sweet spot and her work identifying “surprising failures” making it hard for AI to handle complexity. The post What AI gets wrong and what failure teaches us appeared first on Microsoft Research.
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.