ReviewCraniomaxillofacial trauma & reconstruction2025
Evaluating Genioplasty Procedures: A Systematic Review and Roadmap for Future Investigations.
Review in Craniomaxillofacial trauma & reconstruction, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Autologous Tissue Grafts for Chin Augmentation With or Without Genioplasty: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Attitudes and practices regarding preoperative psychological evaluation in orthognathic surgery: a scenario-based national survey of Turkish oral and maxillofacial surgeons.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Optimizing Maxillomandibular Position in Orthognathic Surgery: Introducing the T Concept in Treatment Planning.Craniomaxillofacial trauma & reconstruction · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designSystematic review.
objectiveThis systematic review examines the existing literature concerning the objective and subjective evaluations of osseous genioplasty outcomes.
methodsA comprehensive search was conducted in databases including PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science, yielding 2563 references, which were screened by two independent reviewers. We included 105 articles originating from 25 different countries. Data were systematically extracted, categorized, and documented.
resultsGenioplasty was performed in 5218 patients, either independently (3560 cases) or in combination with other orthognathic procedures (1696 cases), with a predominant focus on female patients (64%). Objective evaluation primarily focused on surgical accuracy, relapse, and neurosensory disturbance, while subjective assessments were largely related to aesthetics and patient satisfaction. Despite significant advancements in three-dimensional surgical planning and assessment, the review highlights a lack of standardized methods for evaluating isolated genioplasty outcomes.
conclusionsThe findings emphasize the need for improved and validated instruments that specifically assess the functional and aesthetic results of genioplastic surgery. Future research should prioritize patient-centered prospective studies and the development of assessment tools to ensure more comprehensive and reliable outcome evaluations.
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.