ArticleJournal of maxillofacial and oral surgery2022
"Surgery First" vs "Traditional Sequence" Surgery: A Qualitative Study of Health Experiences in 46 Bimaxillary Orthognathic Patients.
Article in Journal of maxillofacial and oral surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence in the Surgery-First Approach: Harnessing Deep Learning for Enhanced Condylar Reshaping Analysis: A Retrospective Study.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Orthognathic patients are advocating an active role in selecting their appropriate ortho-surgical treatment, between the surgery first (SF) and the traditional sequence (TS) approaches. The aim of this study was to evaluate, through qualitative analysis, the subjective perceptions of the outcomes of each protocol. Methods: In-depth interviews were conducted with 46 (10 male and 36 female) orthognathic patients (23 SF and 23 TS) treated with bimaxillary orthognathic surgery by the same surgeon, between 2013 and 2015. Average treatment duration was 6.5 months for SF and 12 months for TS. Inclusion criteria were: the presence of Class III or Class II asymmetries and open bite. Patients were excluded if they refused interviews or stopped attending post-treatment follow-up. Investigated health experiences included overall satisfaction with appearance, self-confidence after surgery, perceived treatment time, functional recovery, and diet restrictions. Results: All SF and TS patients showed overall satisfaction with their appearance (though TS showed more enthusiastic tones) and approved their degree of functional recovery after surgery. Class III SF patients had earlier improvements in self-confidence after surgery. Orthodontics was considered enduring by both SF and TS patients. Conclusions: SF patients expressed a higher degree of satisfaction with the reduction in overall treatment time and with the early psychological benefit deriving therefrom. Both SF and TS patients completely approved of the aesthetic outcomes and the functional recovery from which they benefitted due to the entire procedure.
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.