Quality of Life After Class III Repair Orthognathic Surgery: Five-Year Retrospective Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of orthognathic surgery on the long-term quality of life of patients with presurgical skeletal Class III and to identify its strongest effect-whether esthetic, social, or functional. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, the subjects were patients after orthognathic surgery for repairing skeletal Class III. Fifty-five patients who had undergone orthognathic surgery from 2013 to 2018 in the oral and maxillofacial surgery department participated in this study. Each participant completed a modified questionnaire used to assess the patient's esthetic, social, and functional abilities after orthognathic surgery. RESULTS: The rate of esthetic improvement in orthognathic surgery patients was 88%. More than four-fifths (81.8%) of the patients reported improvement in their personal and social self-esteem and confidence. Finally, 40.7% of the patients reported functional improvement. No significant differences between male and female patients were found. All but one of the patients recommended orthognathic surgery for patients with similar problems. One in six (17.3%) patients was dissatisfied with the nasal appearance after the surgical procedure, while almost a quarter (21.8%) reported worsening of their mouth opening, and 25.4% reported worsening of TMJ (Temporo-Mandibular Joint) symptoms. Analysis of the results revealed no statistically significant pattern connecting preoperative overjet or overbite measures with satisfaction rates. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, patient satisfaction with the orthognathic surgical procedure was mostly a result of improvements in facial esthetics, followed by psychological well-being and functional abilities. Most dissatisfaction after the orthognathic surgical procedure was related to nasal appearance, mouth opening, and TMJ complaints.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".