ArticleOral and maxillofacial surgery2023
Comparison of two surgical techniques (HOO vs. BSSO) for mandibular osteotomies in orthognathic surgery-a 10-year retrospective study.
Article in Oral and maxillofacial surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Bypassing mandibular osseous defect using the high oblique sagittal split osteotomy: a case report and review of literature.Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons · 2026Article
- Three-dimensional assessment of condylar head position in CBCT scans before and after orthognathic surgery.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Prevalence of Osteosynthesis Hardware Removal Due to Surgical Site Infections Following Sagittal Split Osteotomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Evaluation of bone contact area and intercondylar distance changes in orthognathic surgery - a comparison between BSSO and HSSO technique depending on mandibular displacement extent.Clinical oral investigations · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo retrospectively compare the high-angled sagittal split osteotomy (HOO) and the bilateral sagittal split osteotomy (BSSO) for the correction of skeletal dysgnathias regarding intra- and postoperative complications.
methodsThe electronic medical records of all patients treated with an orthognathic surgery at the Department for Oral, Maxillofacial and Facial Plastic Surgery, University Hospital Frankfurt, Germany, between the years 2009 and 2019 were retrospectively reviewed.
resultsTwo hundred ninety-one patients were included. The overall complication rates were 19.78% (BSSO) compared to 12.5% (HOO) (p = 0.14). Significant differences were found regarding the operation time (HOO < BSSO, p = 0.02), material failure (HOO > BSSO, p = 0.04), and early recurrence requiring revision surgery (HOO < BSSO, p = 0.002). The use of a ramus plate significantly reduced the risk of plate failure (2.8% < 13.6%, p = 0.05). More bad splits (p = 0.08) and early sensory disorders (p = 0.07) occurred in the BSSO group.
conclusionThe HOO presents a possible alternative to the BSSO since newly developed osteosynthesis material significantly reduces the risk of material failure. The BSSO is accompanied by higher risks of developing complications like a bad split and sensory disorders but, however, remains the standard for large anterior-posterior transpositions of the mandible.
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.