# Virtual Surgical Planning in Orthognathic Surgery: Two Software Platforms Compared
## 4 Discussion  
Every year, thousands of patients elect to undergo combined surgical-orthodontic treatment to ease correction of severe jaw deformities [1; 2; 3; 4; 5]. Due to the complex nature of the dentofacial anatomy, orthognathic surgery often requires extensive pre-surgical planning [6; 7; 8]. In recent years, the rapid development of fast and affordable digital computers has revolutionized medical surgery [1]. This revolution has affected orthodontics in many ways, and the best improvement was achieved using surgical planning tools. Over the years, the advent of imaging software programs has proved to be useful for diagnosis, treatment planning, and outcome measurement [16]. Therefore, over the years, the use of virtual surgery planning software for education, pre-operative assessment, pre-surgical planning, and measurement has become very prevalent as, since recently, the market has offered various options for the surgeon to choose: Dentofacial Planner Plus (Dentofacial Software, Toronto, ON, Canada) (DFP), IPS (IPSCaseDesigner KLS Martin Group), Quick Ceph (Quick Ceph Systems, San Diego, CA, USA), and Dolphin Imaging (Dolphin Imaging Software, Canoga Park, CA, USA) (DI), among others. The aim of our study was to make a comparison between two surgical planning software tools on the market for the study and planning of orthognathic surgery: the well-known and proven Dolphin Imaging and the emerging IPS. [PERSON] et al. discussed a comparison of these two VPS software tools based on accuracy of soft tissue prediction in two patients undergoing an intraoral quadrangular Le Fort II osteotomy [17] and a comparison based on feasibility, time consumption, and costs in a standardized workflow \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{p{113.8 pt} p{113.8 pt} p{113.8 pt} p{113.8 pt} p{113.8 pt}} \hline
**Recommended (Dolphin Imaging)** & **Minimum (Dolphin Imaging)** & **Component** & **Minimum (IPS)** & **Recommended (IPS)** \\ \hline Windows 7 SP1, Windows 8, Windows 6.1, or Windows 10 & Windows 7 SP1, 64 bit & Windows 7 SP1, 32 or 64 bit & **Operating System** & Windows 7, 8, 10, 64 bit or higher \\ \hline
4 GB or higher & 2 GB (4 GB for Dolphin 3D) & **RAM** & 8 GB & 16 GB \\ \hline Intel® CoreTM i7 & Intel® CoreTM2 Duo & **CPU** & 2 core processor & i7 processor with high clock rate \\ \hline
3D only: 512 MB video card, based on one of these DirectX 9.0 graphics engines or better: NVIDIA 8400 GS, AT HD 5450, or Intel HD 4600 & **Graphes Card** & Optimal 3D support (Open GL) & Min 1 GB own onboard memory, 2 GB for 4K/Retina displays \\ \hline
1920 \(\times\) 1080 & 1280 \(\times\) 1024 at 24-bit color & **Screen Resolution** & 1440 \(\times\) 900 & Full HD (1920 \(\times\) 1080), 1920 \(\times\) 1200 \\ \hline
500 GB or higher & 3 GB free disk space only to install & **Disk Space** & 5 GB free disk space or more & \\ \hline Broadband connection of 5 Mbps or faster & Broadband connection & **Internet** & Internet connection & Broadband Internet connection \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Minimal requirement to work with the two software. for a modified intraoral quadrangular Le Fort II osteotomy (IQLFIIO) [18]. As we know, in the current literature, there is no work that compares the VPS Dolphin Imaging and the IPS discussing items such as accuracy, validity, time, and usability in the surgical planning of dentoskeletal dysmorphia. Analysis of the results from the measurements of the acquisition times: analyzing the measurements, the first difference in performance is evident regarding the acquisition times of the CBCT data, with the average difference in acquisition in favor of the Dolphin software, showing more effective imaging in both single acquisition and long-run. Moreover, it is interesting to note how the data acquisitions of the 10 CBCTs are much more heterogeneous in the case of the IPS software, a sign of greater variability.