SynthesisHead & face medicine2026
Three dimensional accuracy and stability of segmented Le Fort I osteotomy - a systematic review.
Synthesis in Head & face medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Biomechanical Evaluation of Patient-Specific Titanium Fixation Systems for Segmental Le Fort I Osteotomy: A Finite Element Analysis.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
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
backgroundSegmental Le Fort I osteotomy has traditionally been regarded as less predictable and stable, a perception largely based on two-dimensional evaluation methods. Despite existing systematic reviews on clinical outcomes, a dedicated synthesis of three-dimensional assessments of surgical accuracy and postoperative stability is lacking. PURPOSE: This systematic review evaluated three-dimensional (3D) assessment methods and outcome of planning accuracy and postoperative stability in segmented Le Fort I osteotomies. The aim was to determine the reliability of 3D methods in capturing surgical accuracy and long-term skeletal stability. STUDY SELECTION: Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane were searched up to October 25, 2024. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials, prospective or retrospective studies, or case series with > 5 patients reporting 3D evaluation of planning accuracy or stability. Exclusion criteria were systematic reviews, meta-analyses, single case reports, ex-vivo or animal studies, and studies involving syndromic patients, facial trauma, or prior maxillofacial surgery. Risk of bias and quality of evidence were assessed using the GRADE approach. Twenty-two studies met inclusion criteria: three randomized and nineteen non-randomized controlled trials. Fourteen assessed planning accuracy, five evaluated stability, and three examined both.
resultsTwenty-two studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the qualitative synthesis. Considerable methodological heterogeneity limited direct comparison and precluded meta-analysis. Overall, segmented Le Fort I osteotomy demonstrated clinically acceptable accuracy; however, certain movements-particularly transverse widening, advancement, and pitch-were more prone to underachievement, with discrepancies ranging from 0.77 to 1.41 mm, 0.55 to 2.69 mm, and 0.12° to 5.22°, respectively. During follow-up, transverse relapse was more pronounced at the dental level (0.39-1.41 mm) compared to skeletal changes (0.05-0.86 mm).
conclusionSegmented Le Fort I osteotomy shows reliable outcomes in 3D evaluations, but some maxillary movements remain difficult to achieve and maintain such as advancement and pitch. Standardized, voxel-based 3D assessment protocols are recommended to improve comparability and strengthen the evidence base. (PROSPERO registration: CRD42018111854).
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.