## 1 Introduction  
Orthognathic surgery, specifically, is a subset of oral and maxillofacial surgery that focuses on correcting diseases and disorders affecting the structure of the jaw and face, sleep patterns, TMJ disorders, malocclusion problems owing to skeletal disharmonies, and other orthodontic problems that cannot be easily treated with orthodontics [1]. These surgeries aim to improve chewing, speaking, and breathing functionality while enhancing the patient's appearance [2]. On the other hand, oral maxillofacial surgery is a broader field that not only includes orthognathic surgery but also concerns the treatment of diseases and injuries of both the functional and aesthetic aspects of the hard and soft tissues of the oral and maxillofacial region [3]. This can range from the removal of impacted teeth and administering of complex facial reconstructions to the treatment of oral cancer, cleft lip and palate, and chronic facial pain disorders. These fields require an in-depth understanding of the interplay between aesthetics and function, and the complex anatomical structures and their relationships in the crani-maxillofacial region [4]. Surgeons specializing in these areas combine their expertise in dentistry, surgery, and general medicine to provide comprehensive care for patients. Orthognathic and oral maxillofacial surgeries traditionally depend on detailed preoperative planning, including the creation of physical models and utilization of various imaging techniques [2]. Dental casts, cephalometric analysis, and two-dimensional (2D) imaging, such as panoramic radiography, cephalograms, and computed tomography (CT) scans, have been the standard [4]. However, these conventional methods present limitations. While 2D imaging has proven valuable, it does not provide comprehensive three-dimensional details of the patient's anatomy. Similarly, physical models, though helpful, cannot capture the dynamic nature of facial structures and movements [5]. The traditional techniques employed in orthognathic and oral maxillofacial surgeries include a range of surgical osteotomies and bone grafting methods. The exact procedures depend on the specific patient case and could involve maxillary osteotomies, mandibular osteotomies, distraction osteogenesis, or even more complex craniofacial surgical approaches. Despite their proven efficacy, these techniques can be quite invasive, with significant post-operative morbidity in some cases [6]. The predictability of outcomes can also be challenging due to variations in healing, relapse, or the lack of precision in executing the pre-surgical plan [6]. Traditional methods come with inherent risks and complications such as infection, bleeding, nerve damage, issues with wound healing, unfavorable bone segment movement, and relapse [5; 7]. In severe cases, these complications could lead to a second surgical intervention [8] From a patient's perspective, traditional surgical methods can be intimidating due to the invasive nature of these procedures and the potential for long recovery times. Additionally, the traditional planning process may not allow patients to visualize the intended surgical outcome, leading to potential dissatisfaction with the postoperative results. Traditional methods in orthognathic and oral maxillofacial surgery rely on the surgeon's skill and experience for precision, which can lead to variability in outcomes [6]. Moreover, translating two-dimensional pre-surgical plans into three-dimensional surgical procedures can be challenging and may affect the accuracy of the operation [9]. While experience and skill can help predict outcomes to some extent, the inherent unpredictability of human tissue responses post-surgery often leads to unexpected results [2]. This lack of predictability can result in dissatisfaction from patients who had different expectations of surgical results [9]. Every patient presents a unique anatomical framework and individual needs and expectations.