Abstract:Background
The quality of life in Class III malocclusion patients are worse than those without the disorder and previous studies have shown that surgical orthodontic treatment has a different effect on these patients compared with mild or moderate malocclusion. This study aimed to investigate the changes in quality of life in patients with Class III malocclusion during surgical orthodontic treatment in Chinese young adults.
Methods
The 14-item Short Form Oral Health Imp… Show more
“…With regard to QoL, this study found that both the onesplint and the two-splint groups experienced significant improvement in OQLQ scores after treatment, which is similar to other studies on East Asian Class III OGS patients [30][31][32]. In addition, despite the worse QoL in the one-splint group pretreatment, there was no significant difference between the two groups in OQLQ post-treatment, suggesting a similar level of QoL was attained.…”
Objectives
Two-jaw orthognathic surgery (OGS) is done using either the one-splint technique with free-hand positioning of the maxillomandibular complex or the two-splint technique with intermediate splints to position the maxilla. It is uncertain which technique achieves better outcomes. This study compares frontal soft tissue symmetry and subjective patient QoL between one-splint and two-splint techniques in skeletal Class III asymmetry patients undergoing OGS with three-dimensional surgical planning.
Materials and methods
This retrospective case-control study comprised 34 one-splint and 46 two-splint OGS patients. Frontal photographs and Orthognathic Quality of Life Questionnaire (OQLQ) were done pre- and post-treatment. Frontal soft tissue symmetry was analysed with the anthropometric Facial Symmetry Index. Measurements were compared with t-tests and chi-squared tests with p-value set at 0.05.
Results
The groups differed in pre-treatment ANB and OQLQ scores. The two-splint group showed significant improvement in all symmetry measures. The one-splint group showed significant improvement in all symmetry measures except midface deviation, upper contour deviation and the Facial Contour Symmetry Index. Both groups showed significant improvement in OQLQ scores. There were no significant differences in post-treatment symmetry measurements and OQLQ scores between groups.
Conclusions
Although two-splint technique may better improve contour symmetry, there were no significant differences in frontal soft tissue symmetry and QoL after OGS in skeletal Class III asymmetry with either one-splint or two-splint technique, with both techniques resulting in significant improvement.
Clinical relevance
One-splint and two-splint surgical techniques produce similar patient-centred outcomes in Class III asymmetry patients.
“…With regard to QoL, this study found that both the onesplint and the two-splint groups experienced significant improvement in OQLQ scores after treatment, which is similar to other studies on East Asian Class III OGS patients [30][31][32]. In addition, despite the worse QoL in the one-splint group pretreatment, there was no significant difference between the two groups in OQLQ post-treatment, suggesting a similar level of QoL was attained.…”
Objectives
Two-jaw orthognathic surgery (OGS) is done using either the one-splint technique with free-hand positioning of the maxillomandibular complex or the two-splint technique with intermediate splints to position the maxilla. It is uncertain which technique achieves better outcomes. This study compares frontal soft tissue symmetry and subjective patient QoL between one-splint and two-splint techniques in skeletal Class III asymmetry patients undergoing OGS with three-dimensional surgical planning.
Materials and methods
This retrospective case-control study comprised 34 one-splint and 46 two-splint OGS patients. Frontal photographs and Orthognathic Quality of Life Questionnaire (OQLQ) were done pre- and post-treatment. Frontal soft tissue symmetry was analysed with the anthropometric Facial Symmetry Index. Measurements were compared with t-tests and chi-squared tests with p-value set at 0.05.
Results
The groups differed in pre-treatment ANB and OQLQ scores. The two-splint group showed significant improvement in all symmetry measures. The one-splint group showed significant improvement in all symmetry measures except midface deviation, upper contour deviation and the Facial Contour Symmetry Index. Both groups showed significant improvement in OQLQ scores. There were no significant differences in post-treatment symmetry measurements and OQLQ scores between groups.
Conclusions
Although two-splint technique may better improve contour symmetry, there were no significant differences in frontal soft tissue symmetry and QoL after OGS in skeletal Class III asymmetry with either one-splint or two-splint technique, with both techniques resulting in significant improvement.
Clinical relevance
One-splint and two-splint surgical techniques produce similar patient-centred outcomes in Class III asymmetry patients.
“…Details of the included studies are summarized in Table 1 . Among the 13 prospective before–after studies included, only 3 had a control group composed of: female students at the university who had a normal occlusion ( n = 14) [ 32 ], volunteers aged 19–20 years old attending a nonmedical, specialty university and with no jaw deformities ( n = 96) [ 24 ]; and healthy individuals, mainly patients’ relatives, classmates, or colleagues ( n = 24) [ 33 ]. The final sample size of patients with dentofacial deformities ranged from 14 to 85 subjects, and the mean of age ranged from 21.3 to 31 years.…”
Our aim was to assess the impact of combined orthodontic–surgical treatment on patients’ oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) according to type of dentofacial deformities, by synthesizing the available evidence. Methods: Search was conducted in the PubMed, Embase/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane databases. The eligibility criteria were studies that measured OHRQoL before–after orthognathic surgery, with results disaggregated by Class II and III. Two researchers independently performed the selection process, data extraction, and methodological quality assessment. Meta-analysis of the standard mean differences (SMD) was performed using random effect models. Results: The search identified 1047 references. Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria, and four were included in the meta-analysis. The SMD of OHRQL global score showed large improvement 4–7 months after surgery in Class II and III patients (2.09, 95% CI 0.68 to 3.49 and 1.96, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.70, respectively). The sensitivity analyses, excluding studies with weak methodological quality, showed that Class III patients’ improvement in functional limitation was significantly higher than in Class II patients (SMD 0.57, 95% CI 0.12–1.02). Conclusions: There is not enough evidence to support differences between Class II and III patients in the OHRQoL impact after orthognathic surgery, but findings suggest lower improvement of some domains in Class II patients.
“…Unlike, the authors found that there were no statistically significant differences regarding the OHIP-14 values before and after orthodontic treatment. However, most of the authors, who compared the OHIP-14 values before and after orthodontic treatment, found that the patients' quality of life had significantly improved after orthodontic treatment [27][28][29][30]. Moreover, Zheng et al [31] found that the positive impact of orthodontic treatment on the patients' quality of life depends on the type of malocclusion.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…According to the authors, patients with class II benefitted the most from the space closure stage, whereas patients with class I malocclusion benefitted the most from alignment and levelling of their teeth, which is an initial stage of orthodontic treatment. Ni et al [29] assessed the OHIP-14 in patients with skeletal class III, who had been treated surgically. The authors found that during the decompensation phase of orthodontic treatment, the patients' quality of life had significantly decreased, whereas after the surgical orthodontic treatment, it had been significantly improved.…”
Background: The aim of the study was to compare the quality of life (QoL) of cancer survivors with a control group of healthy subjects before, during, and after the orthodontic treatment. Methods: Consecutive cancer survivors (40 people) who were looking for orthodontic treatment between 2008 and 2015 were enrolled into the study. Healthy orthodontic patients matched for age (±4 years), sex, and malocclusion served as controls. The 14-item version of the Oral Health Impact Profile was used to assess the effect of orthodontic treatment on QoL before, during, and after the orthodontic treatment. Results: There were no significant differences between both groups regarding the cast model, cephalometric analysis, and photographic documentation analysis. There was a significant worsening of QoL after the onset of the orthodontic treatment with a significant improvement after the treatment. Male cancer survivor patients reported significantly lower QoL during the treatment time, which was not observed in the male control group. Conclusions: The outcome of orthodontic treatment in cancer survivors did not differ from the healthy orthodontic patients. The orthodontic treatment had an impact on the oral health quality of life both in the cancer and the control groups with a significantly higher impact in male cancer survivor patients.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.