ArticleHead & face medicine2025
Effects of mandibular setback surgery using the surgery-first approach versus conventional orthognathic approach on upper airway change and sleep quality.
Article in Head & face medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Volumetric Three-Dimensional Evaluation of the Pharyngeal Airway After Orthognathic Surgery in Patients with Skeletal Class III Malocclusion.Diagnostics (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
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the effects of mandibular setback surgery on the upper airway and sleep quality using two approaches: the surgery-first approach (SFA) and the conventional orthognathic approach (COA). MATERIALS AND
methodsA prospective, comparative clinical study was conducted in 20 patients, with 10 in each group undergoing isolated mandibular setback surgery. Three-dimensional upper airway analysis using cone-beam computed tomography and sleep quality assessments through questionnaires and sleep studies were performed preoperatively (T0), within 1 month postoperatively (T1), and six months postoperatively (T2).
resultsThe SFA group demonstrated greater mandibular setback and rotational changes compared to the COA group. Both groups exhibited postoperative reductions in airway volume and minimum cross-sectional area, with no significant intergroup differences. Significant differences in the change in airway length in the upper airway segment (0.9 ± 1.0 mm for SFA vs. -1.2 ± 3.4 mm for COA, P = 0.002) and total airway length (3.3 ± 1.8 mm for SFA vs. -0.1 ± 2.3 mm for COA, P < 0.001) were observed at T2 compared to the preoperative period. Subjective and objective sleep parameters were comparable between the groups. Objective sleep quality initially worsened but improved over time.
conclusionsIsolated mandibular setback surgery, whether performed using SFA or COA, resulted in comparable changes in upper airway dimensions and sleep quality. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The choice between SFA and COA for isolated mandibular setback surgery does not significantly influence surgical decision-making regarding upper airway changes and sleep quality.
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.