Increasing the Scope of Craniomaxillofacial Surgery: From Paradigm to Practice

Abstract

The scope of craniomaxillofacial surgery has expanded dramatically over the past century, driven less by incremental progress than by episodic paradigm shifts and the interdisciplinary collaboration that made them possible. From the reconstructive efforts of Gillies in the early 20th century to the craniofacial revolutions of Tessier and McCarthy, the field has continuously redefined its boundaries. This paper examines the historical development, philosophical underpinnings, and contemporary opportunities for scope expansion in craniomaxillofacial surgery. Through analysis of training models, emerging technologies, and institutional strategy, we propose a framework for the next paradigm shift in craniofacial and maxillofacial surgery; 1 integrating virtual surgical planning, biologic reconstruction, and systems-based leadership. Expanding the scope of practice in craniomaxillofacial surgery will not happen passively. It requires claiming complex cases, measuring outcomes that matter to patients, and training surgeons who lead multidisciplinary teams rather than defer to them. The future of craniomaxillofacial surgery depends on our willingness to redefine its borders rather than simply defend them.

Keywords

craniomaxillofacial surgery craniofacial surgery maxillofacial surgery scope of practice scope expansion paradigm shift surgical innovation virtual surgical planning distraction osteogenesis orthognathic surgery

Introduction

“Scientific development is not evolutionary in the sense of gradual accumulation, but rather by a series of peaceful interludes punctuated by intellectually violent revolutions” – Thomas S. Kuhn

The evolution of surgical specialties such as craniomaxillofacial surgery has always involved both scientific progress and shifts in how we frame the problems we are trying to solve. In the early 20th century, a group of philosophers and scientists known as the Vienna Circle sought to define how knowledge advances through reason and evidence.¹ Their philosophy, known as logical positivism, proposed that all meaningful statements must be either empirically verifiable or analytically true. Knowledge, they argued, progresses through systematic observation, hypothesis formation, and the rigorous application of quantitative methods. This view profoundly influenced how modern medicine, and surgery in particular, came to understand the nature of scientific progress.

Within this framework, science was conceived as a linear and cumulative process in which each discovery builds upon the last through a predictable sequence of observation, testing, and refinement. Surgical specialties developed according to similar principles. New techniques were accepted only when they could be repeatedly demonstrated, measured, and logically explained. Progress was understood as the gradual accumulation of verified experiences, each operation, case series, or technical refinement contributing another verifiable fact to the collective body of surgical knowledge. We still, to this day, inherently assume this to be true.

Craniomaxillofacial surgery, therefore, was historically regarded as the product of empirically proven interventions, a discipline built on reproducibility and analytical rigor.² The field expanded through successive refinements in fracture management, tissue transfer, and osteotomy technique, each innovation justified by direct observation and measurable outcomes. Under the logical positivist model, advancement was viewed not as a revolution of ideas but as the steady accumulation of techniques within an established framework.

However, this may not be the case.

The reality of the development of surgical specialties is more dramatic. There is, in fact, not a linear progression of evidence that leads to new ideas. Rather, surgery itself develops by episodic growth. In his landmark book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Kuhn and Hacking challenges the positivist view by proposing that progress in science, and by extension in surgical practice, occurs through revolutionary changes in underlying assumptions.³ The distinction matters. Kuhn defines “normal science” as the day-to-day work of scientists operating in the current paradigm. He suggests that periods of “normal science” are punctuated by paradigm shifts.” In these moments, the old framework is not revised but replaced entirely, along with its assumptions about what problems matter and what methods are valid. We argue that this is precisely how the scope of craniomaxillofacial surgery has expanded.⁴

The History of Paradigm Shifts in Craniomaxillofacial Surgery

Modern craniomaxillofacial surgery emerged alongside the birth of plastic surgery, with Sir Harold Gillies at its center during World War I.⁵ At Queen’s Hospital in Sidcup, Gillies established the first dedicated center for maxillofacial reconstruction, where he developed new techniques for the complex facial injuries sustained by soldiers.^6-8

Gillies codified his surgical philosophy in the “Gillies Rules,” which included memorable principles such as “replace like with like” and “never throw anything away,” underscoring the importance of tissue conservation and anatomic fidelity.⁹ He was also a gifted educator, attracting and training surgeons from around the world, thereby laying the foundation for the specialty and ensuring dissemination of his methods. The legacy of his work not only advanced reconstructive techniques but also established plastic surgery as a distinct specialty, with enduring relevance to contemporary practice.⁶

One of those trainees was Varaztad Kazanjian. Dr. Kazanjian was instrumental in establishing oral surgery as a distinct specialty through his work in mandibular fracture management and integration of dental expertise into surgical practice. As a Harvard Dental School graduate, Kazanjian brought a unique perspective to Queen’s Hospital in Sidcup, where he collaborated with Harold Gillies and other surgeons to treat complex facial injuries. His development and refinement of intraoral splints and wiring techniques for mandibular fracture fixation, later termed maxillomandibular fixation (MMF), advanced the management of mandibular trauma and laid the groundwork for oral and maxillofacial surgery as we know it.^10,11 Kazanjian’s approach emphasized the restoration of dental occlusion and masticatory function, highlighting the role of dental knowledge in facial reconstruction. He also underscored the value of multidisciplinary teams and helped elevate the status of dental professionals, solidifying oral surgery as a specialty within both surgical and dental fields.

Sir Archibald McIndoe, a cousin and trainee of Sir Harold Gillies at Queen’s Hospital in Sidcup, emerged as a central figure in reconstructive surgery during World War II.¹² Confronted with the singular problem of treating severely burned airmen, McIndoe drew on the principles of craniomaxillofacial surgery he learned from Gillies but advanced the field by integrating both reconstructive technique and a deeper appreciation for the psychosocial dimensions of recovery.

McIndoe’s innovations included new techniques for burn management, early excision and grafting, and the psychological rehabilitation of patients. He recognized that restoring quality of life required attention to both physical appearance and social reintegration. This broader view of recovery led to the founding of the Guinea Pig Club, a support network for burn survivors, and set new standards for multidisciplinary care in craniomaxillofacial surgery.¹³ By combining what Gillies had taught him with a broader vision of patient-centered outcomes, McIndoe helped establish modern craniomaxillofacial surgery as a specialty focused equally on function, esthetics, and psychosocial recovery.¹²

After World War II, there was a divergence of specialties, driven by the rapid expansion of reconstructive techniques. Based on the work of McIndoe, plastic surgery began to integrate esthetic form and function more deliberately. Otolaryngology began to focus on “head and neck” services, and oral surgery, rooted in dentistry, concentrated on skeletal trauma.

The Orthodontic Contribution and the Birth of Orthognathic Surgery

Yet even as specialties diverged, critical advances were bridging the gap between disciplines. Broadbent, an American orthodontist working in the post-war period, developed the cephalometer and established the analytical framework for distinguishing skeletal from dental discrepancies.¹⁴ More than a diagnostic refinement, it was a conceptual leap: for the first time, surgeons and orthodontists could precisely quantify the skeletal contribution to facial deformity and to plan surgical correction with a degree of predictability previously unattainable. The cephalometric framework became the shared language through which orthodontists and surgeons could communicate, plan, and evaluate outcomes across disciplines.

Building on this diagnostic revolution, Obwegeser transformed the operative management of skeletal facial deformity. Obwegeser, an Austrian who held dual training in both medicine and dentistry, developed the modern bilateral sagittal split osteotomy and the LeFort I osteotomy techniques that remain cornerstones of the specialty.^15,16 His insistence on a team approach between orthodontist and surgeon, and his emphasis on rigorous planning with esthetic outcome as the primary goal, represented a paradigm shift in their own right. What Obwegeser did was not additive. He changed the framework itself, redefining how dentofacial deformity was understood and treated. He is justly regarded as the father of modern orthognathic surgery, and his influence extended well beyond his own institution through the many trainees he inspired across the globe.

Craniofacial Surgery and Distraction Osteogenesis

Two further paradigm shifts reshaped the boundaries of what craniomaxillofacial surgeons could aspire to treat, and both illustrate Kuhn’s model with striking clarity. In the 1960s, Tessier, a French plastic surgeon, integrated neurosurgical access with craniofacial reconstruction in collaboration with the neurosurgeon Gérard Guiot.¹⁷ Tessier’s work established craniofacial surgery as a distinct discipline and demonstrated that the facial skeleton could be safely and radically reconfigured through intracranial approaches. Before Tessier, the cranial vault and facial skeleton were treated as separate domains by different specialists. After Tessier, they became a single operative field. The effect was not incremental. Tessier redefined what craniomaxillofacial surgery could achieve.

In the 1990s, McCarthy, an American plastic surgeon, applied Ilizarov’s principles of distraction osteogenesis to the mandible, and the technique has since been extended to the midface and cranial vault.¹⁸ Distraction osteogenesis eliminated the need for bone grafting in many clinical scenarios and opened therapeutic possibilities for conditions previously considered beyond surgical remedy. McCarthy’s innovation, like Tessier’s before it, did more than add a technique. It changed how surgeons thought about the relationship between bone biology and skeletal reconstruction. It also expanded the patient population that craniomaxillofacial surgeons could meaningfully serve, including neonates and infants for whom traditional grafting approaches carried prohibitive morbidity.

What emerges from this history is a pattern. The scope of craniomaxillofacial surgery has never expanded through the steady accumulation of evidence that logical positivism would predict. It has expanded through episodic leaps, moments when someone redefined what the specialty could and should do. And critically, it was craniomaxillofacial surgeons who defined these shifts.

An Honest Reckoning: Where the Specialty Falls Short

Acknowledging the specialty’s proud history does not excuse us from self-criticism. There are missed opportunities in our current clinical scope. Complex oncologic cases and pediatric trauma involving the craniomaxillofacial skeleton are sometimes ceded to other specialties by default rather than by clinical rationale. Long-term outcome tracking remains inconsistent across many centers, making it difficult to demonstrate the value of our interventions with the rigor that patients, institutions, and payers increasingly demand. The adoption of innovation can be slow, hampered by institutional inertia and conservative training cultures. Fellowship exposure is sometimes narrow, producing surgeons who are technically proficient in a limited repertoire but unprepared for the breadth of pathology that craniomaxillofacial surgery could and should address.¹⁹

These are not minor deficiencies. They represent the accumulation of anomalies that, in Kuhn’s framework, signal that the current paradigm is straining under the weight of unmet needs. If we do not respond, other specialties will fill the gaps we leave.

From Crisis to Paradigm Shift

Returning to Kuhn’s framework, we can map the current state of the specialty with some precision. Normal science, the day-to-day work within established boundaries, continues. But anomalies are accumulating: unmet clinical needs, scope erosion to other specialties, and a growing gap between what is technically possible and what is routinely offered. When confidence in the current boundary weakens, crisis ensues. The resolution, as Kuhn would have it, is not retreat. It is a paradigm shift: new roles, new techniques, new collaborations that redefine the specialty’s scope.^3,4

We can either architect that shift or watch it happen without us.

The Expanded Scope: Current and Potential Frontiers

Beyond the traditional domains of facial trauma, orthognathic surgery, and cleft care, the potential scope of craniomaxillofacial surgery extends into areas that are already yielding clinical results and others that remain on the near horizon. Facial reanimation, airway expansion, oral competence restoration, tissue engineering, artificial intelligence-driven surgical planning, ballistic trauma reconstruction, gene and molecular therapy, and fetal surgery all represent areas in which craniomaxillofacial surgeons are already making contributions or in which our anatomical expertise and surgical skill set position us to lead.^20,21 These are not speculative fantasies. Each is grounded in emerging evidence and clinical need. The frontiers exist. The question is who will claim them.

Forces Driving Scope Expansion in Craniomaxillofacial Surgery

The forces driving this expansion are both external and internal. Externally, technological innovation is lowering the barriers to complex procedures. Virtual surgical planning, patient-specific implants, augmented reality navigation, and bioactive 3-dimensional printing are all contributing to this shift.^22,23 Patient demand is rising, and referral networks are becoming more fluid as information asymmetry between specialists diminishes. Internally, training is evolving. Cross-disciplinary fellowships, digital fluency in virtual surgical planning, artificial intelligence, and robotics, and leadership development in multidisciplinary teams are producing a new generation of craniomaxillofacial surgeons equipped to work at the frontiers of the specialty.²⁴

Emerging Technologies Reshaping Craniomaxillofacial Surgery

Emerging tools on the horizon will further reshape what is possible. Augmented reality surgical navigation promises to overlay preoperative plans onto the surgical field in real time, reducing the cognitive burden of complex 3-dimensional reconstructions. Bioactive 3-dimensional printing may allow the fabrication of patient-specific scaffolds that integrate with host tissue rather than merely occupying space. Smart distractors with integrated sensors could enable remote monitoring and adaptive distraction protocols, reducing the need for frequent clinic visits and improving compliance. Neuromodulation techniques, including hypoglossal nerve stimulation for obstructive sleep apnea, represent a further frontier in which craniomaxillofacial surgeons are well positioned to contribute given our anatomic expertise in the upper airway and established role in managing sleep-disordered breathing. Regenerative scaffolds seeded with a patient’s own cells represent the convergence of tissue engineering and personalized medicine.^23,25

For these technologies to benefit our patients, craniomaxillofacial surgeons must be involved in their development, validation, and clinical translation, not as late adopters but as developers. The surgeons who shaped our specialty’s paradigm shifts did not wait for someone else to hand them a finished tool.

Measuring Patient-Centered Outcomes in Craniomaxillofacial Surgery

Expansion without evidence is unsustainable. As we broaden our scope, we must commit to measuring patient-centered outcomes: functional results in speech, mastication, and airway patency; validated esthetic outcome scores; quality-of-life surveys; and return-to-work rates.²⁶ Data of this kind not only supports scope expansion by demonstrating value to patients and institutions but also sharpens our understanding of where further innovation is most needed. Without this kind of evidence, scope expansion is just rhetoric. With it, we earn institutional investment and public trust.

Training the Next Generation

The next generation of craniomaxillofacial surgeons must be trained differently from the last. Cross-specialty competence is no longer optional. Trainees must develop fluency in digital technologies, including virtual surgical planning, artificial intelligence, and robotic-assisted procedures. They must be prepared to lead multidisciplinary teams, not just sit on them.^24,27 Fellowship programs that expose trainees to the full breadth of the specialty, from neonatal airway management to complex oncologic reconstruction, will produce surgeons equipped to define the scope of their practice rather than inherit it.

Advocacy and Institutional Strategy

Clinical excellence alone is insufficient. Craniomaxillofacial surgeons must also engage strategically with hospital leadership, aligning our programs with institutional goals. Demonstrating productivity, academic prestige, and the capacity to attract regional referrals builds the case for investment in our specialty. Developing a center or institute model that integrates clinical care, training, and research under a craniomaxillofacial surgery umbrella creates visibility and sustainability.¹⁹ The surgeon who operates well but does not advocate for the specialty’s institutional position is solving only half the problem.

Call to Action: Defining the Future Scope of Craniomaxillofacial Surgery

Our specialty will not expand on its own. Gillies did not wait for permission to build the first maxillofacial unit at Sidcup. Tessier did not ask whether intracranial access belonged to plastic surgery. McCarthy did not defer to orthopedics before applying Ilizarov’s principles to the pediatric mandible. What they shared was a willingness to define the scope of their practice rather than inherit it. That same willingness is what the current moment demands. Practically, this means claiming complex cases that are being ceded by habit rather than rationale, building the outcome data that justifies institutional investment, training residents to lead multidisciplinary teams rather than serve on them, and engaging hospital leadership with the same rigor we bring to the operating room. The surgeons who shaped this specialty did not wait for the paradigm to shift around them. Neither should we.^4,19

Conclusion

The history of craniomaxillofacial surgery is a history of paradigm shifts. Each leap, from Gillies’s wartime reconstructions to Obwegeser’s orthognathic innovations, from Tessier’s craniofacial surgery to McCarthy’s distraction osteogenesis, was driven by individuals who refused to accept the boundaries of their era. The scope of craniomaxillofacial surgery will change regardless. The only question is whether we will be the ones who shape it.

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Robin J. Evans

Author Contributions

Robin J. Evans: Conceptualization, Writing – Original Draft, Writing – Review and Editing.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: the author serves as a consultant for Mectron Piezosurgery.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable. This manuscript is an editorial and does not contain original research data.

Artificial Intelligence Use

AI-assisted tools were used in the preparation of this manuscript for purposes including literature organization and editorial refinement. The author takes full responsibility for the accuracy, integrity, and originality of all content.

References

Stadler

Nielsen

CR.

The Vienna Circle: Studies in the Origins, Development, and Influence of Logical Empiricism. Springer; 2001.

Hausamen

JE.

The scientific development of maxillofacial surgery in the 20th century and an outlook into the future. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2001;29(1):2-21.

Kuhn

Hacking

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Vol 2. University of Chicago Press; 1970.

Horen

Hansdorfer

Kronshtal

Dorafshar

Becerra

AZ.

The most disruptive publications in craniofacial surgery (1954-2014). J Craniofac Surg. 2021;32(7):2426-2430.

Thompson

JF.

Harold Gillies, pioneer of modern plastic surgery, and Donald Morton, pioneer of modern surgical oncology: master problem-solvers and surgical role models. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2023;87:24-32.

Treger

Taylor

Prasad

Thaller

SR.

Plastic surgery contributions to the World Wars: historical foundations for modern craniofacial techniques. J Craniofac Surg. 2025;36(2):420-426.

Simpson

David

DJ.

Herbert Moran Memorial Lecture. World War I: the genesis of craniomaxillofacial surgery?

ANZ J Surg. 2004;74(1-2):71-77.

Zhang

Hallock

GG.

Gillies and Dunedin: the birthplace of modern plastic surgery. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2020;73(6):1012-1017.

Freshwater

MF.

A critical comparison of Davis’ principles of plastic surgery with Gillies’ plastic surgery of the face. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2011;64(1):17-26.

10.

Mukerji

McGurk

Mandibular fractures: historical perspective. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2006;44(3):222-228.

11.

Louis

Morlandt

AB.

Advancements in maxillofacial trauma: a historical perspective. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018;76(11):2256-2270.

12.

Geomelas

Ghods

Ring

Ottomann

“The Maestro”: a pioneering plastic surgeon—Sir Archibald McIndoe and his innovating work on patients with burn injury during World War II. J Burn Care Res. 2011;32(3):363-368.

13.

Baldwin

AJ.

Mollie Lentaigne, the nurse who drew McIndoe’s Guinea pigs: exploring the role of a medical artist at the Queen Victoria Hospital, 1940–1945. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2018;71(8):1207-1215.

14.

Broadbent

BH.

A new X-ray technique and its application to orthodontia. Angle Orthod. 1931;1(2):45-66.

15.

Obwegeser

HL.

Orthognathic surgery and a tale of how three procedures came to be: a letter to the next generations of surgeons. Clin Plast Surg. 2007;34(3):331-355.

16.

Obwegeser

HL.

Mandibular Growth Anomalies: Terminology, Aetiology, Diagnosis, Treatment. Springer; 2001.

17.

Tessier

The definitive plastic surgical treatment of the severe facial deformities of craniofacial dysostosis: Crouzon’s and Apert’s diseases. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1971;48(5):419-442.

18.

McCarthy

Schreiber

Karp

Thorne

Grayson

BH.

Lengthening the human mandible by gradual distraction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1992;89(1):1-8.

19.

Greenberg

Prein

Craniomaxillofacial Reconstructive and Corrective Bone Surgery: Principles of Internal Fixation Using the AO/ASIF Technique. Springer; 2002.

20.

Morris

Margulis

Pitfalls in orthognathic surgery: avoidance and management of complications. Clin Plast Surg. 2007;34(3):e17-e29.

21.

Ilizarov

GA.

The tension-stress effect on the genesis and growth of tissues. Part I. The influence of stability of fixation and soft-tissue preservation. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989;238:249-281.

22.

Steinbacher

DM.

Three-dimensional analysis and surgical planning in craniomaxillofacial surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015;73(12 Suppl):S40-S56.

23.

Jardini

Larosa

Filho

, et al. Cranial reconstruction: 3D biomodel and custom-built implant created using additive manufacturing. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2014;42(8):1877-1884.

24.

Gruen

Pitt

Green

Parkhill

Campbell

Jolley

The effect of provider case volume on cancer mortality: systematic review and meta-analysis. CA Cancer J Clin. 2009;59(3):192-211.

25.

Warnke

Springer

ING

Wiltfang

, et al. Growth and transplantation of a custom vascularised bone graft in a man. Lancet. 2004;364(9436):766-770.

26.

Klassen

Rae

Riff

, et al. FACE-Q craniofacial module: part 2 psychometric properties of newly developed scales for children and young adults with facial conditions. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2021;74(9):2330-2340.

27.

Hopper

Kapadia

Morton

Normalizing facial ratios in Apert syndrome patients with Le Fort II midface distraction and simultaneous zygomatic repositioning. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;132(1):129-140.