ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2026
Is Maxillomandibular Advancement Possible in Skeletal Class III Patients? A Scoping Review.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Unlike skeletal Class I and II patients, the application of maxillomandibular advancement (MMA) in skeletal Class III patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is not well documented. The aim of this scoping review was to explore the variations and outcomes of MMA techniques in this unique subgroup. A comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane and LILACS databases were conducted for articles published up to May 2025. Nine studies met the inclusion criteria. Three main variations of MMA were identified: (1) Bimaxillary advancement, which provides the most significant airway enlargement across all pharyngeal regions but carries the highest risk of facial aesthetic distortion; (2) Maxillary advancement with mandibular auto-rotation, a less invasive option suited for patients with isolated maxillary retrusion and symmetrical mandibular anatomy; (3) Maxillary advancement with mandibular setback, which addresses aesthetic concerns in patients with mandibular excess but may compromise oropharyngeal airway space. All variations were reported to be effective in treating OSA (Reduction of AHI by at least 50%) but with different considerations. Surgical planning for skeletal Class III patients with OSA should be individualized based on craniofacial morphology, anatomical site of airway obstruction, and aesthetic considerations. A decision flowchart was shared in this study.
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.