ReviewMaxillofacial plastic and reconstructive surgery2025
Evaluating fractal value of mandibular ramus and condylar volume in patients undergoing orthognathic surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Maxillofacial plastic and reconstructive surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
aimThe aim of the present study was to evaluate condylar volume and mandibular ramus in patients undergoing orthognathic surgery.
methodRelevant keywords were searched in the international databases Cochrane, Embase, and MEDLINE up to February 2025. Study selection criteria were based on the PICOS strategy; randomized clinical trial studies, cohort studies, cross-sectional studies, case-control studies (study (S)) that examined changes in condylar and ramus position (Outcome (O)) in orthognathic surgery as skeletal treatment (Intervention (I)) for Class III versus Class II (Comparison (C)) in patients who had undergone orthognathic surgery (Population (P)). Data were collected based on study findings from three-dimensional (3D) cephalometric/cone-beam computed tomographic (CBCT)analysis and measurements of condylar angle, volume, and position. The methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS) used to determine the quality of the studies. Mean differences were used as an effect size with fixed-effects model and inverse-variance methods of 95% confidence intervals (CI). Meta-analysis was performed using Stata (as of version 17).
resultThe mean differences in condylar height between Class II and Class III were 2.19 mm (MD 2.19 mm 95% CI; 1.32 mm, 3.96 mm; p < 0.05). The mean differences in ramus angle between Class II and Class III were - 0.02° (MD - 0.02 95% CI - 0.06, 0.03; p > 0.05).
conclusionBased on the meta-analysis of the present study, orthognathic surgery did not significantly affect the microstructure of the mandibular ramus in the correction of class III malocclusions. In Class II, the condyle height was significantly reduced after orthognathic surgery, while the condyle width did not change.
trial registrationPROSPERO CRD420251054773.
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.