The Current State of Intraoperative Imaging in Maxillofacial Surgery: A Systematic Review

Background: In maxillofacial reconstruction, even small inaccuracies can compromise aesthetics, function, and safety. Surgeons currently rely on preoperative imaging; however, recent advances in intraoperative imaging now provide three-dimensional, real-time guidance, possibly enhancing surgical outcomes. This review evaluates the current application of intraoperative imaging in maxillary and mandibular surgery including its impact on accuracy, efficiency, and outcomes. Methods: Two separate systematic reviews (PROSPERO CRD420251125497, CRD420251124600), analyzing maxillary and mandibular repair were conducted through Cochrane, Medline, Embase, and Web of Science. Both reviews adhered to the PRISMA guidelines. Inclusion criteria encompassed intraoperative digital imaging or navigation in maxillary or mandibular surgery. Studies without human subjects, intraoperative imaging, or the surgery of interest were excluded. Bias was assessed with NIH Quality Assessment. Results: A combined total of 795 publications were screened, with 35 studies ultimately included in this review, encompassing 1643 patients. Techniques included intraoperative computed tomography (CT) (n = 12, 34.3%), stereotactic navigation (n = 16, 45.7%), augmented reality (n = 2, 5.7%), ultrasound, fluoroscopy, infrared stereoscopic and electromagnetic (n = 1, 2.9%, each). The most common indication for surgery was fracture repair. Reporting was heterogeneous, with variable metrics and reporting for accuracy, complications, and revisions. Overall, cone-beam CT (CBCT) and stereotactic navigation both demonstrated significant restoration of normal symmetry, and stereotactic navigation enabled accuracy of <2 mm. CBCT added the shortest amount of time intraoperatively, ranging from 1 to 20 min. Reporting on long-term outcomes was heterogeneous. Conclusions: A variety of intraoperative imaging and navigation techniques are being applied in maxillofacial surgery. However, inconsistent reporting metrics, small study size, and study feasibility-focused study design limit meaningful comparison across technologies. Rigorous prospective studies with standardized outcome measures are needed to further define their clinical value and guide adoption.