Evaluating Mandibular Condyle Position Changes After Orthognathic Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Present research aims to evaluate mandibular condyle position changes after bilateral sagittal split osteotomy and bimaxillary orthognathic surgery. Relevant keywords were searched in the international databases Cochrane, Embase, and MEDLINE (PubMed and Ovid) up to January 2025. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale used to determine the quality of the studies. Mean change of condylar values was used as an effect size with random-effects model and REML methods of 95% confidence intervals (CI). Meta-analysis performed using Stata (as of version 17). The mean change of left condylar position pre- and postoperative values of BSSO was -0.28º (ES -0.28º 95% CI; -1.59º, 1.03º; p<0.05). Non-significant mean values of condylar position pre- and postoperative of BSSO and bimaxillary orthognathic surgery in left sagittal plane was observed (p>0.05). The mandibular condyle position after surgery is influenced to some extent by orthognathic surgery.
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 | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.020 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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".