ReviewMaxillofacial plastic and reconstructive surgery2025
Nasal septum deviation after orthognathic Le Fort I osteotomy: 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. 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.
- Nasal sill resection concomitant with maxillary orthognathic surgery for the management of alar base widening.BMC oral health · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOrthognathic Le Fort I osteotomy (LF-IO) reinstates an accurate anatomical and functional interrelation between the facial skeletal structures. There are numerous reports in the literature regarding nasal ventilation after LF-IO, yet the number of studies focused on nasal septum angle/deviation is limited. PURPOSE: This systematic review was designed to gather and analyze all of the human studies that have investigated nasal septum angle and deviation before and after LF-IO. DATA SOURCES: An electronic search was executed in Medline via PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar to identify eligible studies Only in English language up to July 10, 2025. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized and non-randomized human clinical studies on adult patients undergoing single-piece or segmental LF-IO with no history of facial traumas and/or anomalies. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Random-effects model analysis was used in all cases. The risk of publication bias was assessed using a funnel plot and Egger's test. All statistical analyses were executed using Comprehensive Meta-analysis software with the significance threshold of 0.05. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Changes in nasal septum angle measured in degrees and through radiography and alar base width changes measured in millimeters.
resultsOne non-randomized clinical trial, ten retrospective and One prospective cohort studies were included; 579 patients were enrolled with a gender ratio of 217:362 (male:female) and an age range of 16 to 56 years old. Four of the included studies had high and eight had moderate qualities regarding their risk of bias. Most patients underwent LF-IO to correct Class III malocclusions. Single-piece LF-IO combined with alar base cinch suture was the most popular surgical procedure. Frontal sections in computed tomography before and 12 months after LF-IO was the most utilized evaluation method. Six studies were selected for various meta-analyses with significantly low publication bias. Releasing nasal septum during LF-IO leads to significant increases in septum angle. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: LF-IO, especially maxillary advancement, significantly increases nasal septum angle and alar base width. A clear definition and diagnosis protocol must be established for nasal septum deviation. Future studies must focus on highlighting a fine line between significant and insignificant changes in nasal septum after LF-IO.
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.