SynthesisBMC oral health2026
Evaluation of psychological effects of orthodontic treatment vs. orthognathic surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC oral health, 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
objectiveThis systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the psychological impact of orthodontic treatment (OT) versus orthognathic surgery (OST). MATERIALS AND
methodsA systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines, using the PICOS framework to define the inclusion criteria for comparing the psychological impact of orthodontic treatment (OT) versus orthognathic surgery (OST). Searches were performed across PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychInfo, CINAHL, and CENTRAL databases for studies published between 2014 and 2025. A meta-analysis was performed on OT and OST studies reporting mean and standard deviation from the OHIP-14 questionnaire. A separate meta-analysis was performed for OST studies using OQLQ.
results15 studies satisfied the predetermined inclusion criteria. OT was associated with improvements in OHRQoL over the course of treatment. These changes became more evident at later follow-up points. OST provided more immediate and pronounced OHRQoL improvements, particularly in psychosocial dimension such as self-esteem and social interactions. The OHIP-14 meta-analysis (ten studies) showed a mean OHRQoL improvement of 9.66 points, with high heterogeneity (I² = 97.91%) and no significant difference between OT and OST. The OQLQ meta-analysis (six studies) showed a 19.50 point improvement (I² = 96.80%) in psychological outcomes. Variability was attributed to differences in study design, tools, and patient characteristics.
conclusionsBoth OST and OT improve OHRQoL, although through different mechanisms and timelines. OST offers faster psychological benefits. OT provides slower gains with less psychological discomfort, especially with aligners. Personalized pre-treatment education is essential and further research is needed to explore long-term psychosocial outcomes.
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.