# Virtual Surgical Planning in Orthognathic Surgery: Two Software Platforms Compared
## 4 Discussion
Analyzing the data acquisition time records of the intraoral scans of both the Dolphin Imaging and IPS software tools, the first result is the variation in the acquisition times that shows the Dolphin Imaging software to be more performing, that is, faster than IPS in the 10 measurements. Both software tools have comparable data homogeneity, demonstrated both in the 10 measurements of the two individual software tools and in the comparison between the two software acquisition times, specifying that this homogeneity can also be correlated to the relative \"lightness\" of the intraoral scan data. The analysis of the results related to the acquisition of 3D facial scans offers interesting insights, confirming once again how the Dolphin Imaging software proves to be more performing. Thus, it must be underlined that the 3D facial scans are, for both software tools, very useful but not strictly mandatory, as both can accomplish a complete planning without this tool. The analysis of the acquisition times highlights a relative heterogeneity of the IPS software alone, both in the single 10 measurements and in the comparison with the recordings of the Dolphin Imaging software, which, also in this case, proves to be faster. It would, therefore, seem that the Dolphin Imaging software is more powerful in managing a large amount of data. As statistical analysis showed, the variances in the acquisition times (CBCT acquisition, oral scan acquisition, facial scans acquisition) are not statistically relevant (\(p\) > 0.5). This is probably due to the small sample (10 patients) at our disposal. Analysis of the results related to the study of the linearity of the programming path: the analysis of the results related to the number of open windows in order to determine the linearity of the planning path demonstrates similarity. The number of windows required by the operator to complete a planning with the Dolphin Imaging software is 17 windows, greater than the 14 windows required to complete a planning with the IPS software. In addition to the number of windows, the intrinsic difference in the specific purposes was also evaluated: the Dolphin Imaging software uses the first three windows to load the patient data sheet, unlike the two used by the IPS software. The IPS software requires one less window to ensure the occlusion overview, integrated in the next window to load the occlusion scan, a missing step in the planning of the Dolphin Imaging software. Larger \"saving\" for the IPS software is given by the latter not needing to use the radiographic data (orthopantomography and telecranium). The phases inherent to the actual planning can be absolutely overwritten for the two software tools. Each software requires eight windows to plan osteectomies and design the occlusal splints. The difference in the number of open windows in planning would suggest a greater ease of use of the IPS software. Ultimately, the investigation into the linearity of the planning path does not show the predominance of one software over the other, bringing out overlapping results in terms of performance and usability. Analysis of the results of the accuracy of the surgical transfer: the analysis of the results shows, according to the evaluations carried out by the operators, that the effectiveness of the surgical planning appears to be comparable between the two software tools, Dolphin Imaging and IPS, with a slight preference towards the latter software, showing an average evaluation value of 7.4 against the average value of 7.3 attributed to the Dolphin Imaging software. A difference of 0.1 is less than the value of the SD (0.75), making the differential itself statistically irrelevant. The analysis of the results referring to the evaluation of occlusal splints in the operating room shows an absolute comparability, attributing to each software an average value of 7.25. Analysis of the results regarding the fundamental investigations: both software tools require 3D facial scans, CBCT, and intraoral scans..