ArticleBMC oral health2026
Comprehensive assessment of mandibular condyle adaptation following mandibular advancement versus mandibular setback surgery.
Article 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 study aimed primarily to evaluate three-dimensionally the alteration in the temporomandibular joint (TMJ) at short- and long-term follow-up after mandibular advancement (MAS) and mandibular setback (MSS) surgeries; secondarily to compare these changes between the two surgical interventions. MATERIALS AND
methodsForty-six patients (92 TMJs) were analyzed: 23 patients underwent MAS, and 23 patients received MSS. Computed tomography scans were obtained preoperatively (T0), within one week postoperatively (T1), and at two years postoperatively (T2). A validated three-dimensional TMJ assessment protocol, encompassing condylar position, inclination, dimensions, joint spaces, intra-articular alignment, and volumetric joint space was applied, and appropriate statistical tests were used to compare changes across time intervals and between the two interventional groups.
resultsIn the MAS group, the mediolateral inclination angle of the right condyle significantly changed from T0 to T1 by 5.56 ± 0.9°, then increased at T2 with a mean long-term change of 0.59 ± 0.14°. Condylar height on the left side also decreased significantly (p = 0.020). Superior (SJS) and posterior joint spaces (PJS) of the left TMJ were reduced by 1.18 ± 0.23 and 0.72 ± 0.29 mm, respectively, whereas in the MSS group, only the anterior joint space (AJS) of the right TMJ increased between T1 and T2 by 0.24 ± 0.09 mm. Volumetric joint space decreased significantly after MAS and remained stable after MSS. No significant changes were reported between the two types of surgeries, except for AJS, SJS, mediolateral condylar position, and anteroposterior condylar position (p < 0.05).
conclusionMAS showed measurable condylar positional changes, mainly lateral inclination and mild posterior displacement, whereas MSS demonstrated smaller within-group changes. However, inter-group analyses indicated greater changes in selected TMJ parameters after MSS than MAS. These findings, based solely on radiographic assessments, warrant cautious interpretation.
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.