ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2025
Analysis of Neurosensory Changes in Orthognathic Surgery Using Saw or Piezoelectric Devices: A Scoping Review.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 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.
- Chronic pain after orthognathic surgery: a retrospective single-center study.Journal of oral & facial pain and headache · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Orthognathic surgery is a successful surgical method for correcting facial deformities, and the piezoelectric system can be used in place of or in addition to traditional tools like the reciprocating saw to perform osteotomies. This study assesses how using a reciprocating saw or a piezoelectric device exclusively affects neurosensory impairment. A review was performed following the PRISMA-ScR recommendations. A search was conducted until December 2024 in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science. Clinical trials and quasi-experimental studies in English and Spanish were included. A total of nine articles were obtained for full-text review using inclusion and exclusion criteria. The selected articles included a total of 731 subjects. The age range of the studies included was between 18 and 49 years. Three of the six analyzed state that piezoelectric surgery positively correlates with neurosensory recovery, showing less surgical time and a less painful and faster postoperative recovery than the use of a saw. However, only two reported no significant statistical difference in sensitivity recovery between the saw and piezoelectric instruments. Despite the methodological heterogeneity among the studies included, the sample size, and the variability of factors, using a piezoelectric system typically shows a better postoperative recovery of sensitivity compared to using a saw.
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.