ArticleBMC oral health2025
The difference in hinge axis position determined by virtual versus conventional planning in orthognathic surgery.
Article in BMC oral health, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of the study was to compare the hinge axis position (Ax) determined by virtual (VSP) versus conventional orthognathic surgery planning (CSP).
methodsThis retrospective cohort study included 320 (female/male = 204/116, median age 24.0 years) adult patients who received single- or two-jaw surgery originally planned using the CSP method and subsequently reevaluated using the VSP method. Three parameters (α = angle between the occlusal plane and reference plane, AxV = perpendicular distance between Ax and the occlusal plane, AxH = perpendicular distance between the upper incisor and AxV) for determining Ax were measured on cephalograms, both in VSP and CSP. Paired t-tests and Bland-Altman plots were used for statistical analysis.
resultsBoth methods differed significantly with a bias of -1.83[Formula: see text] (95% CI -2.04 to -1.62) for α, -0.24 mm (95% CI -0.41 to -0.08) for AxV and 0.46 mm (95% CI 0.27 to 0.65) for AxH, with negative values indicating an overestimation by the CSP method. All differences were within the range considered as clinically acceptable.
conclusionsThere were statistically significant differences in all parameters; however, these differences were small and within the range generally considered to be clinically acceptable.
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.