Study Year of
publication 		Materials and Methods Primary outcome measures Conclusion
P Dentofacial deformity TVSP/
TSP 		Planning instrument Surgical procedure Assessment
methods 		OP Hard tissue accuracy Soft tissue accuracy
De Riu et al. [25] 2014 20 Canting of occlusal plane of > 3° or midline discrepancies > 2.5 mm TVSP: 10 Maxilim Bimaxillary Linear and angular measurements define alignment of midlines/cant IAS Rate of alignment (%) Rate of alignment (%) Hard tissue accuracy improved with TVSP
LIPFM MSPFM CDM Soft tissue menton/facial midline
TSP: 10 Articulator 88.2a 80.2b 92.6c 76.7
50.8 42.7 58.5 79.7
Van Hemelen et al. [26] 2015 66 Class II/III TVSP: 31 Maxilim Bimaxillay: 20
Single jaw: 11 		Linear measurements on cephalometric radiographs 4 Difference planned/achieved (mm) No difference in hard tissue accuracy between TVSP and TSP. Soft tissue accuracy improved with TVSP
Horizontal Vertical Horizontal Vertical
1.42 (SD 0.78) 1.44 (SD 0.61) 1.48 (SD 0.73)d 1.46 (SD 0.53)e
TSP: 35 Articulator Bimaxillay: 26
Single jaw: 9 		1.71 (SD 0.87) 1.69 (SD 0.76) 2.29 (SD 1.06) 2.07 (SD 0.95)
Bengtsson et al. [27] 2018 62 Class III and overjet > 5 mm TVSP: 28 Simplant Bimaxillary:15
Single jaw: 13 		Linear and angular measurements on cephalometric radiographs 12 Difference planned and achieved NR Hard tissue accuracy improved with TVSP. TVSP improved outcome in asymmetric facial appearance and malocclusion
First incisor/NSL A-point (mm)
0.23°f 1.86f
TSP: 29 Facad Bimaxillay:14
Single jaw: 15 		3.95° 2.75
Schneider et al. [28] 2019 21 Class II TVSP: 9 Dolphin Bimaxillary SNA, SNB and ANB angle NR Difference planned and achieved NR Hard tissue accuracy was improved with TVSP
SNA SNB ANB
0.6°h 0.7°i 0.5°j
TSP: 12 1.8° 1.9° 1.6°
Hanafy et al. [29] 2020 18 Dentofacial disharmony and mis-alignment TVSP: 9 Mimics Bimaxillary Linear and angular dental measurements IAS Difference planned/achieved (mm) NR Hard tissue accuracy was improved with TVSP
Horizontal Vertical Transverse
0.17k 0.26k 0.07k
TSP: 9 Articulator 1.31 1.45 0.71
Xu et al. [30] 2020 30 Class III.
No severe asymmetry 		TVSP: 15 Mimics Bimaxillary Maxillary position assessed by three skeletal points IAS Difference planned/achieved (mm) NR No difference in hard tissue accuracy between TVSP and TSP
Horizontal Vertical Transverse
0.89 0.77 0.42
TSP: 15 Articulator 0.95 0.69 0.51
Chen et al. [31] 2021 51 Dentomaxillofacial deformity requiring bimaxillary surgery TVSP: 21 Mimics Bimaxillary Maxillary position assessed by eight selected points on the teeth 7 days after surgery Difference planned/achieved (mm) NR No difference in hard tissue accuracy between TVSP and TSP
2.15 (SD 1.12)
TSP: 20 Articulator 2.55 (SD 0.95)

aP = 0.03 (Student's test); bP = 0.01 (Student's test); cP = 0.03 (Student's test); dP = 0.002 (unpaired Student's t-test); eP = 0.005 (unpaired student t-test); fP < 0.001 (Fisher's Exact test), gP = 0.035 (Fisher's exact test); hP < 0.001 (unpaired Student's t-test and Fisher's exact test); iP = 0.002 (unpaired Student's t-test and Fisher´s exact test); jP < 0.001 (unpaired Student's t-test and Fisher's exact test); kP < 0.05 (unpaired Student's t-test, Mann-Whitney U-test).
ANB = A point to B point angle; CDM = centring of the dental midlines; IAS = immediately after surgery; LIPFM = lower interincisal point to facial midline; MSPFM = mandibular sagittal plane to facial midsagittal plane; P = number of patients; SD = standard deviation; SIA = semi-individual articulator; SNA = sella-nasion to A point angle; SNB = sella-nasion to B point angle; TSP = two-dimensional surgical planning; TVSP = three-dimensional virtual surgical planning.