Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41287093›Full record

ArticleHead & face medicine2025

3D volumetric analysis of upper airway changes following orthognathic surgery.

Lukas B Seifert, Stephani V Cleanthous, Michelle Klos, Sarah Bühling, Sead Abazi, Britt-Isabelle Berg, Florian M Thieringer, Robert Sader

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Head & face medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Lukas B Seifert *Department of Oral and Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospital Basel, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland. lukasbenedikt.seifert@usb.ch.
Stephani V Cleanthous *Department of Oral, Cranio-Maxillofacial and Facial Plastic Surgery, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Michelle KlosDepartment of Oral, Cranio-Maxillofacial and Facial Plastic Surgery, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Sarah BühlingDepartment of Orthodontics, Polyclinic of Orthodontics, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Sead AbaziDepartment of Oral and Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospital Basel, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Britt-Isabelle BergDepartment of Oral and Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospital Basel, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Florian M ThieringerDepartment of Oral and Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospital Basel, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Robert SaderDepartment of Oral, Cranio-Maxillofacial and Facial Plastic Surgery, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOrthognathic surgery is frequently performed to correct dentofacial deformities and is known to alter the upper airway morphology. This study aimed to analyze volumetric changes in the upper airway following mono- and bimaxillary surgery using virtual surgical planning, with a specific focus on the minimal cross-sectional area (mCSA) and total upper airway volume (TUAV).

methodsIn this retrospective study, 81 patients with Angle Class II or III malocclusions underwent either mandibular advancement (MA), maxillomandibular advancement (MMA), mandibular setback, or a combination of mandibular setback with maxillary advancement. Surgical planning was performed using IPS CaseDesigner® software. Pre- and postoperative CBCT scans were analyzed to assess changes in mCSA and TUAV. Displacement distances were measured for both jaws, and statistical analysis was performed using paired t-tests and Pearson correlation.

resultsMA and MMA in Class II patients resulted in significant increases in mCSA (p = 0.0048 and p = 0.0005, respectively) and TUAV (p = 0.0346 and p = 0.01, respectively). In contrast, mandibular setback in Class III patients showed non-significant decreases in airway parameters, while bimaxillary surgery produced slight, non-significant increases. A mandibular setback of less than 4.05 mm was not associated with a relevant reduction in airway volume.

conclusionMA and MMA significantly increase upper airway dimensions and are effective treatment strategies for oropharyngeal airway deficiencies in Class II patients. Minor mandibular setbacks (< 4.05 mm), especially when combined with maxillary advancement, appear to preserve airway volume in Class III patients. These findings highlight the importance of individualized virtual planning to optimize both functional and aesthetic outcomes, while recognizing the limitations of using static CBCT imaging to assess dynamic airway function.

Indexed as

Cone-Beam Computed TomographyImaging, Three-DimensionalMalocclusion, Angle Class IIMalocclusion, Angle Class IIIOrthognathic Surgical ProceduresPharynxAdolescentAdultFemaleHumansMaleMandibular AdvancementRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeYoung AdultAirway volumeCone beam computed tomographyMandibular advancementObstructive sleep apneaOrthognathic surgeryVirtual planning

Identifiers

PMID41287093
PMCPMC12702155

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.