Evaluation of Satisfaction Levels Following Orthognathic Treatment in Adult Patients: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dentofacial deformities can significantly impact an individual's quality of life, affecting facial aesthetics, self-esteem, and overall well-being. The combined orthognathic surgery-orthodontic treatment is the preferred approach for correcting moderate-to-severe deformities. However, patient satisfaction following orthognathic surgery remains a crucial outcome measure, influenced by various factors, including the type of malocclusion, surgical procedure, and demographic characteristics. This systematic review aimed to synthesize the available evidence regarding patient satisfaction following orthognathic surgery, exploring the effects of the type of malocclusion, surgical procedure, age, and gender on satisfaction rates, addressing a gap left by previous outdated reviews. A comprehensive literature search was conducted across multiple databases, including PubMed®, Scopus®, Web of Science™, and Embase®. Eligibility criteria were defined using the PICOS (population, intervention, comparison, outcomes, and study design) framework. Cochrane's ROBINS-I (Risk of Bias In Non-randomized Studies-of Interventions) tool was employed for non-randomized intervention studies within clinical controlled trials to assess the risk of bias. In parallel, a revised version of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale determined the methodological quality of cohort and cross-sectional studies. Sixteen studies were analyzed, revealing satisfaction levels ranging from 83% to 100%. Findings indicate that class III malocclusion patients report higher satisfaction than class II patients and satisfaction varies based on surgical type, with bimaxillary procedures generally yielding better outcomes. While most studies found no significant correlation between satisfaction and demographic factors such as age and gender, some suggested younger patients may express higher satisfaction and that female patients might report lower satisfaction levels. The review highlights the importance of effective patient communication and expectation management in achieving optimal satisfaction outcomes in orthognathic surgery. Limitations such as memory bias and methodological diversity across studies restrict the ability to perform meta-analyses, underscoring the need for further research in this area.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".