Factors influencing the quality of life among orthognathic patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Orthognathic surgery enhances both oral function and aesthetic outcomes for patients with dentofacial disharmony (DFD). However, the influencing factors on oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) in patients with varying characteristics remain unclear. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aims to comprehensively investigate the factors that influence quality of life (QoL) in patients undergoing orthognathic surgery, and address the gaps of subgroup comparisons in existing reviews, specifically focusing on country development level, type of DFD, type of surgical procedure, and sex. SEARCH METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CENTRAL, SIGLE, CNKI, CSTJ, and WANFANG Database were searched from 2000 to 2025. SELECTION CRITERIA: This systematic review included cohort studies that evaluated the impact of orthognathic surgery on QoL and its various influencing factors as measured by Orthognathic Quality of Life Questionnaire-22 (OQLQ-22) or the Oral Health Impact Profile-14 (OHIP-14). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for Cohort Study was employed to evaluate the quality of included studies. RevMan software was used to perform the meta-analyses. RESULTS: The review included 22 articles with 1482 participants, of which 20 were included in the meta-analyses. Using OQLQ-22, an improvement was noted in the four dimensions of QoL at five months postoperatively compared to the preoperative period. Subgroup analysis indicated that patients undergoing double jaw surgery (MD 22.55, 95% CI [17.00, 28.10]), with skeletal Class III malocclusion (MD 21.91, 95% CI [16.38, 27.45]) and female patients (MD 23.72, 95% CI [11.05, 36.40]) experienced a more significant degree of improvement, suggesting a higher likelihood of achieving greater surgical satisfaction. Notably, the overall QoL improvement was more pronounced in developing countries (MD 21.63, 95% CI [13.82, 29.45]) overall compared with developed countries (MD 18.22, 95% CI [14.22, 22.22]). Similar results were observed in the use of OHIP-14. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the factors influencing QoL in orthognathic patients, including country development level, type of DFD, surgical procedures, and sex in the QoL. The degree of improvement in patients' QoL varied according to these characteristics. Given the limited number of studies available, further comprehensive research is warranted. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42024582409).
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 | 0.015 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".