Upper airway dimensions in patients undergoing orthognathic surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Effects of mandibular setback with or without maxillary advancement osteotomies on pharyngeal airways: An overview of systematic reviews

“…Four[27, 29, 30, 32] of these systematic reviews have focused on mandibular setback with or without concomitant maxillary osteotomies, while two others[18, 31] investigated multiple orthognathic procedures. The characteristics of the included articles are shown in Table 2.…”

“…The characteristics of the included articles are shown in Table 2. Although five reviews[18, 27, 29–31] declared no conflict of interest, there was one review[32] did not mention about it. Besides, four included systematic reviews[18, 29, 31, 32] reported that they were not funded, one[30] did not declare on funding status, and only one review[27] was funded.…”

“…Analysis with the AMSTAR tool revealed that only three systematic reviews with high scores of 8[27, 31] and 10[18] “yes”, whereas the others[29, 30, 32] have scored 5 or less (Table 3). Although only three systematic reviews[18, 27, 31] reported on an ‘a priori’ design, all six articles have performed a comprehensive literature search with three or more electronic databases.…”

“…Although only three systematic reviews[18, 27, 31] reported on an ‘a priori’ design, all six articles have performed a comprehensive literature search with three or more electronic databases. The review of Mattos et al [18] accomplished the highest score of “yes”, and was the only review that has listed and referenced both included as well as excluded studies.…”

“…While Canellas et al [30] did not report on quality assessment of their included primary studies, no uniform quality assessment tool was used to assess the quality of primary studies across the other five systematic reviews. Christovam et al [31] have applied the assessment criteria compiled by Mattos et al [18] with a different scoring system that they have developed on their own (Table 4). …”