Effect of surgery-first orthognathic approach on oral health-related quality of life:
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To systematically evaluate the effect of the surgery-first approach (SFA) on oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) in patients with dentofacial deformities. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An electronic database search and hand search of selected journals and references were carried out. Studies investigating the OHRQoL of patients receiving SFA with or without a control group were included. The risk of bias was assessed by the Cochrane risk of bias tool in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale in non-RCTs. RESULTS: A total of seven articles met the eligible criteria and were included, of which six were cohort studies and one was an RCT, and six assessed the OHRQoL of the SFA with conventional orthodontic-surgical treatment (COST) as a control and one without. A total of 214 patients were examined, with sample sizes in studies ranging from 9 to 50. A total of 3 articles successfully measured the OHRQoL both before and after treatment in both the SFA and conventional orthodontic-surgical treatment groups. A total of six cohort studies were classified as low to moderate risk of bias, and the RCT was classified as high. CONCLUSIONS: The SFA could improve the OHRQoL of patients with dentofacial deformities similar to conventional orthodontic-surgical treatment at the end of complete treatment. In addition, it increases OHRQoL immediately at the beginning of treatment without a deterioration.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".