ArticleAesthetic plastic surgery2025
Mandibular Angle Osteotomy via Intraoral Approach: A 15-Year Experience from a Single Plastic Surgery Center in China.
Article in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2025. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMandibular angle osteotomy (MAO) using an intraoral approach is a common procedure for correcting square facial contours in the Asian population. While previous retrospective studies have primarily focused on complications rates, limited research has examined time-related trends and the epidemiological characteristics of the surgical population. A comprehensive study with a large sample size and long-term follow-up is crucial to enhance outcomes, minimize complications, provide evidence-based insights, and consolidate clinical experience.
methodsThis retrospective study reviewed 3,501 MAO cases performed via an intraoral approach between January 2008 and December 2022. Patients were categorized into three cohorts based on admission dates: group A (January 2008 to December 2012), group B (January 2013 to December 2017), and group C (January 2018 to December 2022). Demographic data, complication rates, and patient-reported satisfaction scores were analyzed across the groups.
resultsThe average ages for groups A, B, and C were 27.38 ± 6.94, 27.41 ± 6.42, and 28.57 ± 6.65 years, respectively, with group C patients being significantly older than those in group B (P < 0.001). Gender distribution showed 48 males and 825 females in group A; 93 males and 1,097 females in group B; and 122 males and 1,316 females in group C, with significant difference between groups A and B (P = 0.039). Complication rates were 13.05% (114 cases) in group A, 5.54% (66 cases) in group B, and 2.50% (36 cases) in group C. Postoperative satisfaction scores for groups A, B, and C were 3.32 ± 0.64, 3.86 ± 0.54, and 4.42 ± 0.58, respectively, with significant improvements across groups (P < 0.05).
conclusionsThe demand for MAO has steadily increased, particularly among individuals aged 21 to 40, with a predominance of female patients. Expanding indications have led to more cases involving middle-aged, elderly, and male patients. Advancements in surgical techniques have contributed to better aesthetic outcomes and lower complication rates. The use of modified osteotomy procedures and digital technologies has enabled safer, more precise surgeries across diverse populations, resulting in significant improvements in lower facial contours. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
Indexed as
Identifiers
40016578What 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.