Table 1: Qualitative descriptions of the included studies ().

Authors/yearStudy designCountrySample sizeType of orthognathic surgeryMethods for collection of data regarding the outcomes satisfaction and quality of life

(1) Cunningham et al. [16]Retrospective (postoperative analysis)
Prospective (preoperative analysis)
United Kingdom100 patients (postoperative analysis)
83 patients (preoperative analysis)
Not reported(1) Satisfaction: structured questionnaire developed by the authors with ranked responses (very satisfied, moderately satisfied, dissatisfied, very dissatisfied)
(2) Self-esteem: Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale
(3) Depression scale
(2) Forssell et al. [17]ProspectiveFinlandInitial sample: 104 patients
Final sample: 31 patients responded to the postoperative questionnaire
Mandibular sagittal split osteotomy (80 patients); Le Fort I maxillary osteotomy (6 patients); bimaxillary osteotomy (14 patients)(1) Visual analogue scale (VAS): satisfaction with the results
(2) Questionnaire for assessment of psychological well-being on a Likert scale (7 points)
(3) Bertolini et al. [18]ProspectiveItaly20 patientsNot reported(1) Satisfaction: structured questionnaire developed by the authors with ranked responses (very satisfied, moderately satisfied, dissatisfied, and very dissatisfied) after surgery
(2) Minnesota multiphasic personality Inventory
(3) Anxiety: State-trait anxiety inventory (STAI)
(4) Depression: Zung Self-rating anxiety Scale
(4) Busby et al. [19]RetrospectiveUSA79 patientsMandibular ramus osteotomy; maxillary advancement; combination of both procedures(1) Satisfaction: 25-item questionnaire to assess satisfaction with postoperative changes, preoperative perception and overall satisfaction with the surgery
(2) Perception of function and occlusion
(3) Problems with facial sensations
(4) Postoperative perceptions
(5) Lee et al. [9]ProspectiveJapan36 patientsBimaxillary osteotomy(1) SF-36
(2) OHIP-14
(3) OQLQ
(6) Al-Ahmad et al. [20]RetrospectiveJordan136 patients (35 patients in the postsurgery group)Not reported(1) OQLQ
(2) SF-36
(7) Choi et al. [3]ProspectiveJapan60 patientsBimaxillary osteotomy(1) SF-36
(2) OHIP-14
(3) OQLQ
(8) Silva et al. [21]ProspectiveBrazil15 patientsBimaxillary osteotomy; mandibular setback and maxillary advancement(1) WHOQOL-Bref
(9) Rustemeyer et al. [22]ProspectiveGermany50 patientsBimaxillary osteotomy(1) OHIP-14
(10) Khadka et al. [23]ProspectiveChinaTotal: 158 patients
Group A (orthodontics/orthognathic): 115 patients
Group B (immediate surgical correction): 43 patients
Group A: sagittal osteotomy; intraoral vertical ramus osteotomy; Le fort I osteotomy; mandibular anterior segmental osteotomy
Group B: mandibular osteotomy; L-shaped zygomatic osteotomy
(1) SF–36
(2) OQLQ
(11) Murphy et al. [4]ProspectiveIrelandInitial sample: 62 patients
Final sample: 52 patients
Bimaxillary osteotomy, mandibular setback(1) OQLQ
(2) VAS
(3) GTS: Global transition Scale
(12) Khattak et al. [24]RetrospectiveUnited Kingdom135 patientsMaxillary advancement and mandibular setback; bimaxillary advancement; condylectomy; maxillary posterior impaction; maxillary distraction osteogenesis; mandibular anterior segmental osteotomy(1) PSQ
(13) Rustemeyer and Gregersen [25]ProspectiveGermany30 patientsBilateral sagittal split osteotomy of the mandibular ramus(1) OHIP-14
(14) Trovik et al. [26]RetrospectiveNorwayInitial sample: 78 patients
Final sample: 36 patients
Bilateral sagittal split osteotomy for mandibular advancement(1) VAS
(2) OIDP
(15) Rustemeyer and Lehmann [27]RetrospectiveGermanySample total: 60 patients
Group bimaxillary osteotomy: 30 patients
Group bimaxillary osteotomy with genioplasty: 30 patients
Bimaxillary osteotomy with or without genioplasty(1) OHIP-14
(16) Wee and Poon [28]RetrospectiveSingaporeInitial sample: 114 patients
Final sample: 41 patients
Le fort I osteotomy and/or mandibular bilateral sagittal split osteotomy(1) OQLQ
(2) OHIP-14
(17) Goelzer et al. [5]ProspectiveBrazil74 patientsNot reported(1) OHIP-14
(18) Schwitzer et al. [29]ProspectiveUSATotal sample: 49 patients
Matched samples: 16 patients
Le fort I osteotomy and/or mandibular bilateral sagittal split osteotomy(1) FACE-Q
(19) Corso et al. [30]ProspectiveBrazilControl group: 60 patients
Surgery group: 30 patients
Not reported(1) OHIP-14
(20) Abdullah [31]RetrospectiveSaudi Arabia17 patientsMandibular, maxillary or bimaxillary osteotomy(1) OQLQ
(21) Park et al. [32]ProspectiveSouth KoreaInitial sample: 44 patients
Final sample:
(a) Conventional surgery group: 15 patients
(b) Surgery-first group: 11 patients
Bilateral sagittal split osteotomy of the mandibular ramus; Le fort I osteotomy(1) OQLQ
(22) Baherimoghaddam et al. [33]ProspectiveIranInitial sample: 75 patients
Final sample: 58 patients
Group class II: 28 patients
Group class III: 30 patients
Le fort I osteotomy; bilateral sagittal split osteotomy of the mandibular ramus(1) OHIP-14
(23) Kilinc and Ertas [34]RetrospectiveTurkeyTotal sample: 60 patients
Control group: 30 class I patients
Test group: 30 class II patients
Maxillary advancement, mandibular setback or both procedures and genioplasty(1) OQLQ
(2) OHIP-14
(3) SF-32
(24) Silva et al. [35]ProspectiveSwedenInitial sample: 55 patients
Final sample: 50 patients
Le fort I osteotomy; bilateral sagittal split osteotomy of the mandibular ramus(1) OHIP-14
(2) OQLQ
(25) Kurabe et al. [36]RetrospectiveJapanSurgery group: 65 patients
Control group: 14 patients with class I occlusion
Le fort I osteotomy; bilateral sagittal split osteotomy of the mandibular ramus(1) OHIPJ-54
(26) Bogusiak et al. [37]RetrospectivePolandTotal sample: 90 patients
Final sample: 66 patients
Bilateral vertical ramus osteotomy by the external approach; extraoral vertical ramus osteotomy (EVRO); bilateral sagittal split osteotomy of the mandibular ramus by the internal approach; bimaxillary osteotomy(1) Satisfaction with life scale: SAT
(27) Huang et al. [38]ProspectiveChinaTotal sample: 50 patients
Surgery-first group: 25 patients
Conventional treatment group: 25 patients
Bilateral sagittal split mandibular ramus osteotomy(1) Dental impact on daily living: DIDL
(2) OHIP-14
(28) Alanko et al. [2]ProspectiveFinlandInitial sample: 60 patients
Final sample: 22 patients
Bilateral sagittal osteotomy, bimaxillary osteotomy, maxillary osteotomy(1) OQLQ
(2) Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale
(3) Acceptance and Action Questionnaire
(29) Pelo et al. [39]ProspectiveItalyTotal sample: 30 patients
Surgery-first group: 15 patients
Conventional surgery group: 15 patients
Le fort I osteotomy, mandibular bilateral sagittal split osteotomy(1) OQLQ
(2) OHIP-14
(30) Zingler et al. [40]ProspectiveGermany9 patientsMaxillary osteotomy, mandibular osteotomy, bimaxillary osteotomy(1) OQLQ
(2) SOC-29