Comparative Analysis Between Traditional Surgical Planning and 3D Biomodeling in Craniomaxillofacial Reconstruction

Background: Craniomaxillofacial (CMF) reconstruction poses a surgical challenge due to the complex anatomy and varied morphological defects resulting from trauma, oncologic resections, or congenital malformations. Traditionally, surgical planning has relied on two-dimensional imaging and surgeon expertise, limiting accurate three-dimensional visualization. The emergence of 3D biomodeling provides tangible replicas of patient-specific anatomy, potentially improving surgical precision and efficiency. Objective: To compare traditional surgical planning with 3D biomodeling in CMF reconstruction by systematically analyzing surgical accuracy, operative times, patient satisfaction, costs, and functional-aesthetic outcomes. Methods: A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Searches were performed in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science for studies published from 2010 to 2023 that compared traditional and 3D-based planning in CMF surgery. Clinical trials, observational studies, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses were included. Quantitative and qualitative data were extracted to compare outcomes. Results: Thirty studies met the inclusion criteria. Most indicated that 3D biomodeling enhances anatomical accuracy, reduces operative times, and improves aesthetic satisfaction compared to conventional planning. However, cost variability was significant, primarily due to different 3D printing technologies and the expertise required by multidisciplinary teams. Conclusions: Current evidence supports the use of 3D biomodeling as a complement or partial replacement for traditional CMF surgical planning. Despite higher costs and the need for specialized infrastructure, progressive adoption of this technology can reduce complications and enhance patient outcomes. Further research with larger sample sizes and long-term follow-up is necessary to consolidate these findings.