ArticleScientific reports2022
Comparison of soft tissue simulations between two planning software programs for orthognathic surgery.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- The impact of orthodontic-surgical treatment on facial expressions-a four-dimensional clinical trial.Clinical oral investigations · 2023Trial
- Virtual reality-augmented differentiable simulations for digital twin applications in surgical planning.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Orthodontic-orthognathic combined case management in postgraduate orthodontic and oral maxillofacial surgery programs.Journal of dental education · 2025Article
- Evaluating Virtual Planning Accuracy in Bimaxillary Advancement Surgery: A Retrospective Study Introducing the Planning Accuracy Coefficient.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Predicting optimal patient-specific postoperative facial landmarks for patients with craniomaxillofacial deformities.International journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery · 2024Article
- Predicting Optimal Patient-Specific Postoperative Facial Landmarks for Patients with Craniomaxillofacial Deformities.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2023Article
- Accuracy of Three-Dimensional Soft-Tissue Prediction Considering the Facial Aesthetic Units Using a Virtual Planning System in Orthognathic Surgery.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare the soft tissue predicative abilities of two established programs depending on the surgical technique and amount of displacement. On the basis of 50 computed tomography images, 11 orthognathic operations with differences in displacement distances and technique (maxillary advancement, MxA; maxillary impaction, MxI; mandibular setback, MnS; mandibular advancement, MnA bimaxillary displacement, MxA/MnS) as well as corresponding soft tissue predictions were simulated using the programs Dolphin (D) and ProPlan (PP). For all the soft tissue predictions by the two programs, eight linear and two angular measurements were performed and compared. The simulation of maxillary impaction showed a similar soft tissue behaviour between the two programs. However, differences or divergent behaviours were observed for other procedures. In the middle third of the face these significant differences concerned in particular the nasolabial angle (Ns-Sn-Ls)(5 mm-MA, D: 119.9 ± 8.6° vs. PP: 129.5 ± 8.4°; 7 mm-MnS: D: 128.5 ± 8.2° vs. PP: 129.6 ± 8.1°; 10 mm-MnA D: 126.0 ± 8.0° vs. PP: 124.9 ± 8.4°; 5 mm-MxA/4 mm-MnS, D: 120.2 ± 8.7° vs. PP: 129.9 ± 8.3°; all p < 0.001) and in the lower third the mentolabial angle (Pog´-B´-Li) (5 mm-MA, D: 133.2 ± 11.4° vs. PP: 126.8 ± 11.6°; 7 mm-MnS: D: 133.1 ± 11.3° vs. PP: 124.6 ± 11.9°; 10 mm-MnA D: 133.3 ± 11.5° vs. PP: 146.3 ± 11.1°; bignathic 5 mm-MxA/4 mm-MnS, D: 133.1 ± 11.4° vs. PP: 122.7 ± 11.9°; all p < 0.001) and the distance of the inferior lip to the aesthetic Line (E-Line-Li) (5 mm-MA, D: 3.7 ± 2.3 mm vs. PP: 2.8 ± 2.5 mm; 7 mm-MnS: D: 5.1 ± 3.0 mm vs. PP: 3.3 ± 2.3 mm; 10 mm-MnA D: 2.5 ± 1.6 mm vs. PP: 3.9 ± 2.8 mm; bignathic 5 mm-MxA/4 mm-MnS, D: 4.8 ± 3.0 mm vs. PP: 2.9 ± 2.0 mm; all p < 0.001). The soft tissue predictions by the tested programs differed in simulation outcome, which led to the different, even divergent, results. However, the significant differences are often below a clinically relevant level. Consequently, soft tissue prediction must be viewed critically, and its actual benefit must be clarified.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.