|
| Authors/year | Study design | Country | Sample size | Type of orthognathic surgery | Methods for collection of data regarding the outcomes satisfaction and quality of life |
|
| (1) Cunningham et al. [16] | Retrospective (postoperative analysis)
Prospective (preoperative analysis) | United Kingdom | 100 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] | Prospective | Finland | Initial 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] | Prospective | Italy | 20 patients | Not 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] | Retrospective | USA | 79 patients | Mandibular 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] | Prospective | Japan | 36 patients | Bimaxillary osteotomy | (1) SF-36
(2) OHIP-14
(3) OQLQ |
| (6) Al-Ahmad et al. [20] | Retrospective | Jordan | 136 patients (35 patients in the postsurgery group) | Not reported | (1) OQLQ
(2) SF-36 |
| (7) Choi et al. [3] | Prospective | Japan | 60 patients | Bimaxillary osteotomy | (1) SF-36
(2) OHIP-14
(3) OQLQ |
| (8) Silva et al. [21] | Prospective | Brazil | 15 patients | Bimaxillary osteotomy; mandibular setback and maxillary advancement | (1) WHOQOL-Bref |
| (9) Rustemeyer et al. [22] | Prospective | Germany | 50 patients | Bimaxillary osteotomy | (1) OHIP-14 |
| (10) Khadka et al. [23] | Prospective | China | Total: 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] | Prospective | Ireland | Initial 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] | Retrospective | United Kingdom | 135 patients | Maxillary advancement and mandibular setback; bimaxillary advancement; condylectomy; maxillary posterior impaction; maxillary distraction osteogenesis; mandibular anterior segmental osteotomy | (1) PSQ |
| (13) Rustemeyer and Gregersen [25] | Prospective | Germany | 30 patients | Bilateral sagittal split osteotomy of the mandibular ramus | (1) OHIP-14 |
| (14) Trovik et al. [26] | Retrospective | Norway | Initial sample: 78 patients
Final sample: 36 patients | Bilateral sagittal split osteotomy for mandibular advancement | (1) VAS
(2) OIDP |
| (15) Rustemeyer and Lehmann [27] | Retrospective | Germany | Sample 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] | Retrospective | Singapore | Initial 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] | Prospective | Brazil | 74 patients | Not reported | (1) OHIP-14 |
| (18) Schwitzer et al. [29] | Prospective | USA | Total 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] | Prospective | Brazil | Control group: 60 patients
Surgery group: 30 patients | Not reported | (1) OHIP-14 |
| (20) Abdullah [31] | Retrospective | Saudi Arabia | 17 patients | Mandibular, maxillary or bimaxillary osteotomy | (1) OQLQ |
| (21) Park et al. [32] | Prospective | South Korea | Initial 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] | Prospective | Iran | Initial 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] | Retrospective | Turkey | Total 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] | Prospective | Sweden | Initial 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] | Retrospective | Japan | Surgery 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] | Retrospective | Poland | Total 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] | Prospective | China | Total 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] | Prospective | Finland | Initial 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] | Prospective | Italy | Total 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] | Prospective | Germany | 9 patients | Maxillary osteotomy, mandibular osteotomy, bimaxillary osteotomy | (1) OQLQ
(2) SOC-29 |
|
