Supplemental Table. 1. Data of the studies of Patients with Condylar Osteochondroma Treated via CAD or CAD/CAM.
Author No.
of cases
Technology Utilized
Surgeries underwent
Mean follow- up time(m)
Mean pre- /postoperative
MMO (mm)
Complication Main results achieved
CAD Yang et al(12)
(2011)
17 3DM, VSP I+VI 24.2 36.2/42.1 1 case with
postoperative numbness of the
lower lip
More accurate excision of the tumor and less damage to the vital structure.
Sun. H et al(13) (2013)
1 3DM, VSP,
endoscopy
I 12 10/43 / Better illumination and clearer
visualization for dissecting TMJ.
`Yu. H et al(14)
（2013）
7 3DM, VSP,
endoscopy
I 28.7 35.1/37.8 / Better protection of important
structures and fewer complications.
Lim, W et al(15) (2014)
2 3DM, VSP I+II+III 21.5 17.5/40 1 case with
‘‘opening’’
sensation
Good recovery of facial appearance and occlusal function.
Li et al (6) (2014)
27 3DM, VSP I+II+III+IV+
V+VI
13 36.1/44.1 / A better approach combining
condylectomy and condylar reconstruction.
Shi et al(16) (2014)
12 3DM, VSP I+IV+V+VI+
VII
24.1 31.5/38.9 3 cases with
postoperative numbness of the lower lip
A new method correcting patients’
facial asymmetry and improving their appearance.
Yu. H et al(17)
（2014）
13 3DM, VSP,
endoscopy
I+II+III+IV+V 36.6 Not mentioned / No significant complications.
Yu. H et al(18)
（2015）
5 3DM, VSP,
endoscopy
I+III+IV+V 20.6 Not mentioned / Continuously updated information
on the position and movement of the surgical instruments.
Hern et al(19)
（2016）
7 3DM, VSP,
endoscopy
I 8.7 Not mentioned / Less surgical time and minimal
postoperative morbidity.
Abbreviation: VSP, Virtual surgical planning; 3DM, 3D modeling; CAD, Computer-aided design;
CAM, Computer-aided manufacturing.
Kim et al(20)
（2016）
3 3DM, VSP I+II+V+IX 3.6 51/47.3 / A simpler modified surgical strategy.
Luo. E et al(8) (2016)
5 3DM, VSP I+II+III+IV+V
+VI+VII
22 Not mentioned / A guideline of surgical protocol
based on the current status of surgical treatment options.
Mehra et al(21) (2016)
21 3DM, VSP I+II+III 68.5 41.7/39.3 / Both complete and low
condylectomy are viable options for surgical management.
Ye et al(22) (2016)
10 3DM, VSP I 28.5 25.4/32.0 1 case with
anterior disc displacement and perforation followed by condylar resorption and ankylosis
A new approach of tumor resection through the infratemporal space.
Cao. J et al(23)
(2020)
56 3DM, VSP,
endoscopy
I+II+III+IX 12-18 Not mentioned / More effective outcomes for
improving the facial symmetry via intraoperative navigation.
CAD/CAM
Bai et al(24) (2014)
1 3DM, VSP,3D- printed surgical
guide
I 6 15/30 / Digital template: more accuracy, less
damage and shorter surgical time.
Li, Y et al(7) (2016)
7 3DM, VSP, 3D- printed surgical
guide
I+II+III+IV+V +VI+IX
1 Not mentioned / Virtual surgical planning and the
guiding templates facilitated the surgery.
L. Huo et al(25) (2018)
11 3DM, VSP,
endoscopy,3D- printed surgical
guide
I+IX 19 31/33.5 / Precise resection of the tumor with
minimal invasion through CAD and CAM
Qi. L et al(26) (2021)
3 3DM, VSP,3D- printed surgical
guide
I 12 Not mentioned / A new surgical technique controlling
the position of condyle with no significant complications.
I, Condylectomy II, Le Fort I osteotomy
III, Sagittal split of ramus osteotomy (SSRO) IV, Genioplasty
V, Mandibular contouring
VI, Sliding vertical ramus osteotomy VII, Mandibular outer cortex osteotomy VIII, Coronoidectomy
IX, vertical ramus osteotomy (VRO)
Supplemental Table. 2. Comparison of 3D-cephalometric measurement between the virtual simulation and the postoperative outcome.
Measurements (mm)
T0
（Mean±SD）
T1
（Mean±SD）
T2
（Mean±SD）
P-Value
（T0vsT2）
P-Value
（T1vsT2）
To FH U6(R) U6(L) L6(R) L6(L) Go(R) Go(L) To MSP A B U1 L1 Me To CoP U6(R) U6(L) L6(R) L6(L) Go(R) Go(L)
45.13±3.08 47.31±3.10 45.75±3.08 47.69±3.98 69.96±8.52 72.53±8.45
0.48±0.12 6.13±0.54 0.73±0.12 3.45±0.51 9.43±1.23
70.83±1.39 69.98±1.90 73.81±1.19 73.53±4.91 23.33±2.28 24.80±5.49
46.53±4.82 47.07±4.74 47.21±4.87 47.88±4.90 64.51±5.21 63.74±4.33
0.88±0.82 0.81±0.66 0.66±0.61 0.60±0.64 1.35±0.98
69.85±3.03 70.41±3.62 71.49±2.31 71.69±3.71 19.23±2.94 18.81±5.50
46.66±4.96 46.86±5.00 47.40±4.78 48.01±5.16 62.35±4.09 60.34±4.25
0.64±0.68 0.73±0.57 0.58±0.56 0.53±0.58 1.26±0.88
69.79±2.95 70.06±3.18 71.11±2.07 71.50±3.11 20.28±3.08 21.01±4.27
0.413 0.787 0.496 0.694 0.233 0.018
a0.342
<0.001
a0.635
<0.001
a<0.001
a0.482 0.776 0.036
a0.314 0.008
a0.095
0.315 0.654 0.191 0.575 0.023
b<0.001
b0.124 0.285 0.916 0.427 0.598
0.769 0.295 0.084 0.637 0.703 0.187 FH, Frankfort horizontal; MSP, midsagittal plane; CoP, coronal plane; T0, Virtual simulation; T1,
Postoperative measurement;
a
Significant difference between preoperative measurement (T0) and postoperative measurement (T2): P <0.05. The paired t test was used to calculate the differences.
b
Significant difference between virtual simulation (T1) and postoperative measurement (T2): P
<0.05. The paired t test was used to calculate the differences.
Supplemental Table. 3. Comparison of virtual simulation and actual postoperative outcome
Case Sex Deviation
（Mean±SD） Maxillary
part
Error <2 mm (%)
Mandibular proximal part Error<2 mm (%) Mandibular part Error <2 mm (%)
Chin part Error <2 mm (%)
1 F 0.645±0.837 100 0.543±0.762 99 0.647±0.873 100 1.162±1.463 98
2 F 0.427±0.502 100 0.462±0.647 100 0.898±1.011 99 1.364±1.531 97
3 M 0.849±0.946 99 1.372±1.792 91 0.832±0.7101 100 1.356±1.759 96
4 F 0.594±0.733 100 2.071±2.135* 71 2.401±2.986* 72 2.752±3.163* 69
5 M 0.248±0.114 100 0.985±1.212 94 0.431±0.746 100 0.895±1.212 100
6 M 0.267±0.581 100 1.272±1.632 93 1.451±1.844 91 0.742±1.027 100
7 F 1.073±1.427 96 0.530±0.881 98 1.685±1.931 94 1.002±1.564 99
8 F 0.664±0.864 97 1.047±1.132 91 0.842±0.857 100 1.256±1.796 99
*