Patient satisfaction after orthodontic treatment combined with orthognathic surgery: A systematic review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To synthesize available evidence about factors associated with patients' satisfaction after orthodontic treatment combined with orthognathic surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Studies that evaluated any factor associated with patients' satisfaction after the conclusion of an orthodontic treatment combined with an orthognathic surgery were identified. Orthognathic surgical procedures should have been undertaken after completion of craniofacial growth. Any satisfaction psychometric tool was considered. No language limitation was set. A detailed individual search strategy for each of the following bibliographic databases was crafted: MEDLINE, PubMed, EBM Reviews, Web of Science, EMBASE, LILACS, and Scopus. The references cited in the identified articles were also cross-checked, and a partial gray-literature search was undertaken using Google Scholar. RESULTS: Eight articles satisfied the inclusion criteria of this systematic review and accounted for 998 patients. The included studies showed large variation in sample size (range = 44 to 505 patients), age (range = 15 to 72 years old), distinct psychological evaluation tools, and time elapsed between the assessment and the completion of surgery and postorthodontic treatment. Most of the studies (five of eight) were classified as having high risk of bias. CONCLUSION: Factors associated with satisfaction were final esthetic outcome, perceived social benefits from the outcome, type of orthognathic surgery, sex, and changes in patient self-concept during treatment. Factors associated with dissatisfaction were treatment length; sensation of functional impairment and/or dysfunction after surgery, and perceived omitted information about surgical risks.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it