Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 1, 2026
Technical Approach for Infrared Tracking for Soft Tissue Navigation with a Holographic Head-Mounted Display and Preclinical Validation
Published on: September 2, 2025
Augmented Reality Technology Could Be an Alternative Method to Treat Craniomaxillofacial Foreign Bodies: A
Jie Yao1, Wei Zeng1, Shanluo Zhou1
1Resident, State Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases, National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases, and Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, West China College of Stomatology, Sichuan University, Chengdu, People's Republic of China.
Purpose:
Removal of foreign bodies in the craniomaxillofacial region can be challenging. The purpose of the present study was to explore the feasibility of using augmented reality (AR) technology to remove craniomaxillofacial foreign bodies.
Patients And Methods:
A prospective study of patients with granular metal foreign bodies retained in the craniomaxillofacial region from March 2017 to March 2019 was performed. AR technology and navigation technology were both used to localize the foreign bodies. The face was divided into upper and lower parts by the ala-tragus line. In groups A and B, navigation technology was used to locate the foreign bodies in the upper face and lower face, respectively. Similarly, AR technology was used in the upper face and lower face in groups C and D, respectively. The primary predictor variable was the technology type. The primary outcome variables were the positioning deviation and the time required for surface positioning. The paired t test and independent samples t test were used for statistical analysis.
Results:
Five patients with 24 craniomaxillofacial foreign bodies were included in the present study. The positioning deviation with navigation technology (1.42 ± 0.49 mm) did not differ from that with AR technology (1.52 ± 0.58 mm; P = .116). The positioning deviation of groups A, B, C, and D was 1.01 ± 0.37, 1.73 ± 0.29, 1.02 ± 0.44, and 1.89 ± 0.36 mm, respectively. The differences for groups A and B were statistically significant (P < .01), as were the differences for groups C and D (P < .01). The time required to position the 2 technologies was significantly different (10.04 ± 2.88 seconds for navigation technology and 3.46 ± 0.83 seconds for AR technology; P < .01).
Conclusions:
AR technology positioning was similar to that of navigation technology; however, it does not require an invasive registration device and provides real-time dynamic image guidance. AR technology could be an alternative method for treating foreign bodies in the craniomaxillofacial region.
