ArticleThe Angle orthodontist2025
Transverse decompensation in surgery-first approach vs conventional orthognathic surgery in mandibular prognathism patients.
Article in The Angle orthodontist, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To investigate transverse treatment outcomes in patients with skeletal Class III malocclusion treated with a surgery-first orthognathic approach (SFA) vs conventional orthognathic surgery (COS). Materials and Methods: This retrospective cohort study included 128 patients, divided into four groups of 32 based on the inclusion of presurgical treatment and extraction of the maxillary premolars: (1) COS with extraction, (2) COS without extraction, (3) SFA with extraction, and (4) SFA without extraction. CBCT scans were taken before and after treatment, with an additional scan after presurgical orthodontic treatment for the COS group only. The primary outcome variable was transverse decompensation, assessed through changes in maxillary and mandibular molar inclination and intermolar width. Predictor variables included treatment approach (SFA vs COS) and extraction status (extraction vs nonextraction). Transverse measurements were compared among the four groups throughout the treatment process. Results: Maxillary molar inclination relative to the occlusal plane increased after treatment, whereas the mandibular molar inclination decreased after treatment, indicating transverse decompensation in the COS and SFA groups, and the extraction and nonextraction groups. There were no statistically significant differences in transverse changes between the COS and SFA groups. Conclusions: Although the difference in transverse decompensation between the COS and SFA groups was not statistically significant, clinicians may still need to consider careful management of transverse decompensation during postsurgical treatment, particularly in SFA cases.
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.