ArticleHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Comparing the Cost-Effectiveness of Orthognathic Surgery Treatment Between Orthodontics-First and Surgery-First Approaches in Thammasat University Hospital: A Retrospective Study.
Article in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 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.
- Comparing the Cost-Effectiveness of Orthognathic Surgery Treatment Between Orthodontics-First and Surgery-First Approaches in Thammasat University Hospital: A Retrospective Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to evaluate and compare the cost-effectiveness of the surgery-first and orthodontic-first approaches in Thai patients with dentofacial deformities undergoing orthognathic surgery.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study included 30 patients with dentofacial deformities, divided into the surgery-first approach (SFA, n = 15) and orthodontic-first approach (OFA, n = 15). All underwent double-jaw surgery without genioplasty performed by a single surgeon and orthodontist. Data collected included operative and orthodontic costs, operative time, total treatment and hospital costs, treatment duration, and length of hospital stay. Cost-effectiveness was assessed using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and incremental time-effectiveness ratio (ITER), with effectiveness measured by quality of life via the Thai Orthognathic Quality of Life Questionnaire (OQLQ) before and at the time of debonding the orthodontic appliance.
resultsOverall, the SFA demonstrated greater cost-effectiveness than the OFA. However, the SFA group incurred slightly higher hospital costs. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in operative cost, hospital cost, total cost, operative time, or length of hospital stay (
conclusionsWithin limits, the SFA is a potentially beneficial alternative to OFA. Patients and clinicians may benefit from using SFA by experiencing shorter treatment duration, lower orthodontic treatment costs, and improvements in certain aspects of quality of life. Further studies with larger sample sizes and longitudinal data are necessary to establish the long-term effectiveness.
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.