Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Filter by Categories
Book Review
Case Report
Case Series
Clinical Article
Clinical Innovation
Clinical Pearl
Clinical Pearls
Clinical Showcase
Clinical Technique
Critical Review
Editorial
Expert Corner
Experts Corner
Featured Case Report
Guest Editorial
Letter to Editor
Media and News
Original Article
Original Research
Research Gallery
Review Article
Special Article
Special Feature
Systematic Review
The Experts Corner
Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Filter by Categories
Book Review
Case Report
Case Series
Clinical Article
Clinical Innovation
Clinical Pearl
Clinical Pearls
Clinical Showcase
Clinical Technique
Critical Review
Editorial
Expert Corner
Experts Corner
Featured Case Report
Guest Editorial
Letter to Editor
Media and News
Original Article
Original Research
Research Gallery
Review Article
Special Article
Special Feature
Systematic Review
The Experts Corner
Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Filter by Categories
Book Review
Case Report
Case Series
Clinical Article
Clinical Innovation
Clinical Pearl
Clinical Pearls
Clinical Showcase
Clinical Technique
Critical Review
Editorial
Expert Corner
Experts Corner
Featured Case Report
Guest Editorial
Letter to Editor
Media and News
Original Article
Original Research
Research Gallery
Review Article
Special Article
Special Feature
Systematic Review
The Experts Corner
View/Download PDF

Translate this page into:

Systematic Review
9 (
2
); 77-88
doi:
10.25259/APOS-77-2019

Surgery-first orthognathic approach: A “scoping review” for mapping outcomes and plausible recommendations to develop core outcome sets

, , , ,
1Discipline of Orthodontics and Paediatric Dentistry, Faculty of Medicine and Health, School of Dentistry, The University of Sydney, New South Wales 2006, Sydney, Australia,
2Cleft and Craniofacial Centre and Dental Service, KK Women’s and Children’s Hospital, Singapore,
3Department of Craniofacial Orthodontics, Craniofacial Research Center, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital and Graduate Institute of Craniofacial Medicine, Chang Gung University, Taipei, Taiwan.
*Corresponding author: Dr. Narayan H. Gandedkar, Faculty of Medicine and Health, School of Dentistry, The University of Sydney, New South Wales 2006, Sydney, Australia. narayan.gandedkar@sydney.edu.au
Received: , Accepted: ,
© 2019
Licence
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-Share Alike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.

How to cite this article: Gandedkar NH, Dávila MMC, Chng CK, Liou EJW, Darendeliler A. Surgery-first orthognathic approach: A “scoping review” for mapping outcomes and plausible recommendations to develop core outcome sets. APOS Trends Orthod 2019;9(2):77-88.

Abstract

Aims and Objectives

The aim of this scoping review was to identify the type of outcomes measured in surgery- first orthognathic approach (SFOA). The objectives were to classify the outcomes into predetermined domains and explore the degree of representation of each domain. Furthermore, to identify which domains are over- or under-represented and determine whether the findings of this scoping review could be employed to provide a template for core outcome sets (COS). Five outcomes were identified, and all the research pertinent to SFOA were assigned to these outcomes.

Materials and Methods

Electronic databases and additional records were searched from January 2009 to March 2019 to source the data, and 525 records were identified.

Results

The initial database and additional search resulted in 525 records, of which 54 potentially relevant articles were retrieved in full. 35 studies met the selection criteria following screening and were included in the scoping review with the results of the search depicted in the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Domains such as morphological features or changes in maxillofacial skeleton and occlusion (n = 25, 71.42%) and psychosocial well-being including quality of life outcome (n = 8, 22.85%) were well represented while functional status (n = 1, 2.85%), health resource utilization (n = 0), and adverse effects (n = 1, 2.85 %) were under-represented.

Conclusions

Limited research on SFOA precludes development of COS. However, future SFOA clinical trials should consider underrepresented outcome domains to address the SFOA treatment modality comprehensively.

Keywords

Surgery-first orthognathic approach
Core outcome sets
Scoping review

INTRODUCTION

A “scoping review” is a relatively new but increasingly becoming a popular research synthesizing approach. A scoping review plays an important role in mapping an existing literature on a subject or a topic or a field of interest that is not extensively reviewed or is of a complex in nature.[1-3] The basic premise of scoping review is to establish a groundwork on which an extensive research, such as full systematic review, could be carried out.[4] Furthermore, scoping review provides a robust and transparent method to identify research gaps in the existing literature pertaining to the specific topic and act as a preliminary step to a more comprehensive systematic review.[5,6] Surgery-first orthognathic approach (SFOA) is an emerging sub-discipline of orthodontics-orthognathic jaw surgery domain whose roots can be traced back to 1960s, when Skaggs JE promulgated that, to achieve adequate interarch relationship, orthognathic jaw surgery should commence before orthodontic treatment.[7] Since then, a surfeit of SFOA treatment protocols is aimed at (1) reduction of total treatment time, (2) accelerating post- operative orthodontic tooth movement, (3) improving patient satisfaction rate, and (4) enhancing health-related quality of life (HRQoL).[8-14,15] Recent review on SFOA outcome shows that the researchers have placed emphasis on assessing morphological features of maxillofacial skeleton and occlusion, reduction in total treatment time, and patient or practitioners satisfaction level. However, there is no uniform consensus on which outcomes of SFOA needs to be analyzed to identify the potential benefits and pitfalls of SFOA or whether there is an impetus to develop an overall core outcome sets (COS) for clinical trials of SFOA to overcome or significantly reduce heterogeneity amongst SFOA studies and minimize outcome reporting bias. Development of COS is one such robust tool that can aid to standardize outcomes for clinical trials and systematic reviews to overcome the aforementioned limitations.[16] Outcome measures in rheumatology and harmonizing outcome measures for eczema are some of the initiatives that are undertaken, in medicine, to improve endpoint outcome measurement through a data-driven, iterative alignment process.[17-19]

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A scoping review of the literature was carried out with the analytic framework using the methodology described by Arksey and O’Malley.[5] The literature search, scope, and reporting of findings were focused with the following stages:

  • Framework Stage 1: Identifying the research question.

  • Framework Stage 2: Identifying relevant studies.

  • Framework Stage 3: Study selection.

  • Framework Stage 4: Charting the data.

  • Framework Stage 5: Collating, summarizing, and reporting the results.

Framework Stage 1: identifying the research question

We formulated our primary research question: What are the types of outcomes measured in SFOA? This scoping review was undertaken with the following aims; (1) to identify the type of outcomes measured in SFOA; (2) to categorize the outcomes into predetermined domains; (3) to explore the extent of representation of each domain to identify which domains have been over- or under-represented; and (4) to determine whether the findings of this scoping review could be employed in providing a template for COS that should be measured in all future clinical trials involving SFOA.

Framework Stage 2: identifying relevant studies, and framework Stage 3: study selection

Reviews suitable for the central research question of this scoping review was carried out by adopting a comprehensive search strategy that involved searching different sources[5] such as, electronic databases, reference lists, manual searching of key journals, existing networks, relevant organizations, and conferences. The scoping reviews study selection criteria are enumerated in Table 1.

Table 1 Scoping reviews study selection criteria.
Inclusion criteria Exclusion criteria
All types of studies pertaining to SFOA Case reports and studies with less than five participants
All age groups, nonsyndromic individuals with skeletal maxillofacial deformity Personal opinions
Individuals treated with minimum or no presurgical orthodontic interventions Nonhuman study
Any types of comparison with conventional orthognathic jaw surgery Modified surgery with no surgery done immediatelyor within 1 month after orthodontic treatment
All types of reported outcomes Technique article

SFOA: surgery-first orthognathic approach

Electronic databases: The following electronic databases were searched from January 2009 to March 2019 without restrictions to language. The start date of 2009 was chosen because the case report by Nagasaka et al.[13] published in 2009 is often cited as the first clinical application of SFOA,[7] and subsequently, numerous research papers have been published with reference to surgery-first protocol.[8-11,20]

PubMed (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/), Cochrane Library Databases, MEDLINE via OVID, EMBASE via OVID, Literatura Latino Americana em Ciências da Saúde, ClinicalTrials.gov., Australian New Zealand clinical trials registry (http://www.anzctr.org.au/), Australian clinical trials (www.australianclinicaltrials.gov.au/search/node/), and Google Scholar were searched with following term sequence: (“surgery first OR surgery early”) AND (“orthognathic surgery”) OR (“surgery first”) AND (“orthodontics” [MeSH]). The term “modified surgery” was excluded from the search strategy and further during the full texts article assessment for eligibility, as it did not satisfy the true meaning of performing surgery-first without orthodontics or minimal orthodontics (i.e. placing only brackets and wires immediately or 1 month before orthognathic surgery).

Framework Stage 4: charting the data

The data extracted from the eligible studies were recorded with information of the first author, year of publication, and study characteristics. The specific information of the eligible studies was charted according to the PICO guidelines with enumeration of study design, participants, intervention, comparison, outcome (primary and secondary), method of measurement, and also outcome domain [Table 2]. Studies that were excluded from the review are shown in Table 3 with reasons for exclusion.

Table 2 Studies selected for the scoping review.
Authors/Year Study design Participant Intervention Comparison Outcome primary/Secondary Method of measurement Outcome domain
Liao et al./2010[21] Retrospective study 33 pts, Conventional jaw surgery (n, 13; 21.0±4.0 years) and SFOA (n, 20; 23.0±4.0 years SFOA in skeletal class III open bite Conventional surgery in skeletal class III open bite Facial aesthetics, occlusion, stability, and efficiency Lateral cephalograph, peer assessment rating Morphological features
Baek et al./2010[8] Prospective study 11 pts, SFOA (n, 20; 22.95±2.54 years SFOA in skeletal class III Surgical movement and postoperative orthodontic treatment Lateral cephalographs Morphological features
Wang et al./2010[22] Case-control retrospective 36 pts: 18 conventional jaw (23.3±4.2 years) and 18 surgery-first (22.3±3.8 years) Patients with skeletal Class III undergoing SFOA Conventional surgery, bimaxillary surgery Changes of transverse dimension in both dental arches Cephalometric measurements Morphological features
Ko et al./2011[23] Retrospective cohort study 53 pts, Conventional jaw surgery (n, 35; 22.0±4.1 years) and SFOA (n, 18; 24.6±4.9 years) SFOA in skeletal class III dentofacial deformities MC approach Dental and skeletal changes, postsurgical dental and skeletal stability, and treatment efficacy Lateral cephalographs Morphological features and treatment efficacy
Liou et al./2011[20] Prospective 22 adult pts SFOA in skeletal dentofacial deformities Postoperative changes in bone metabolism, tooth mobility Periotest method, immunoassay Morphological features, biomarkers
Ko et al./2013[24] Retrospective cohort study 45 pts, Conventional jaw surgery (n, 25; 25.1±6.8 years) and SFOA (n, 25; 25.4±6.4 years) SFOA in skeletal class III dentofacial deformities Groups based on the amount of horizontal relapse Parameters identification related to skeletal stability after SFOA Lateral cephalograph cephalometric measurements Morphological features
Kim et al./2014[25] Retrospective cohort study 61 pts, Conventional jaw surgery (n, 38; 21.6±3.5 years) and SFOA (n, 23; 23.0±6.3 years) SFOA in skeletal class III dentofacial deformities Conventional surgery Stability of mandibular setback surgery Lateral cephalograph cephalometric measurements Morphological features
HernándezAlfaro et al./2014[10] Prospective 45 pts: SFOA SFOA in class II, III and asymmetry Specific orthodontic and surgical protocol VAS on patient satisfaction and orthodontists on selected treatment approach SFOA protocol development. Adverse effects of Tx physical consequence
Lee et al./2014[26] Retrospective 40 pts (22.6±4.0 years) SFOA in skeletal class III dentofacial deformities Postsurgical skeletal changes Cephalograms generated from cone-beam computed tomography Morphological features
Kim et al./2014[11] retrospective 37 pts (23±4 years) SFOA in skeletal class III dentofacial deformities Postoperative stability using IVRO Lateral cephalograph Morphological features
Park et al./2014[27] Retrospective 60 pts: 36 conventional jaw surgery (22.4±4.4 years) and 24 SFOA (22.4±4.6 years) SFOA class III malocclusion Conventional surgery, bimaxillary surgery Dental change Lateral cephalograph Morphological features
Choi et al./2015[28] Retrospective n, 35 pts; 24.7 years SFOA clockwise MMC skeletal class III deformities Posterior pharyngeal airway change Lateral cephalograph cephalometric measurements Morphological features
Choi et al./2015[29] Case–control prospective 56 pts (average age, 22.4 years: conventional jaw surgery (n, 24) and SFOA (n, 32) Surgery-first approaches for patients with skeletal class III dentofacial deformity Conventional surgery Reliability of a surgery-first orthognathic approach without presurgical orthodontic treatment Dental model, Cephalometric assessment Morphological features
Yu et al./2015[30] Retrospective cohort 50 pts (16–37 years) Skeletal malocclusions Report experience with the SFA for skeletal malocclusion Morphological features
Park et al./2015[31] Case-control retrospective 40 pts: 20 conventional jaw surgery (25.25±3.77 years) and 20 SFOA (22.60±5.39 years SFOA bimaxillary surgery Conventional surgery, bimaxillary surgery Postoperative stability/relapse rate Cephalometric radiographs Morphological features
Park et al./2015[32] Retrospective 26 pts, Conventional jaw surgery (n, 15; 25.0±3.2 years) and SFOA (n, 11; 26.2±4.4 years) SFOA in skeletal class III dentofacial deformities Conventional surgery QoL OQLQ Oral health-related QoL
Rhee et al./2015[33] Retrospective 34 patients (23 men, 11 women; mean age, 26.2±6.6 years) SFOA in skeletal class III dentofacial deformities Skeletal and dental changes Cone-beam computed tomography Morphological features
Huang et al./2016[34] Prospective 50 pts: conventional jaw surgery (24.2±5.8 years) and SFOA (25.2±4.2 years) SFOA class III malocclusion Conventional surgery, bimaxillary surgery Oral health related QoL and satisfaction between surgery-first and orthodontic-first orthognathic surgery patients Two questionnaires: the dental impact on daily living and 14-item oral health impact profile OHRQoL
Choi et al./2016[35] Retrospective cohort 37 pts, Conventional jaw surgery (n, 17; 20.8±0.9 years) and SFOA (n, 20; 21.1±0.7 years SFOA in skeletal class III dentofacial deformities using IVRO Conventional surgery using IVRO Postoperative skeletal and dental changes Lateral cephalograph cephalometric measurements Morphological features
Wang et al./2016[36] Retrospective cohort 55 pts: conventional jaw surgery (n, 29; 22.2±3.8 years) and SFOA (n, 26; 21.6±3.3 years Bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy for mandibular prognathism using OFA Conventional surgery Compare the postoperative changes of the condylar position after mandibular setback surgery 3D CT images Morphological features
Akamatsu et al./2016[37] Retrospective cohort 38 pts (14 SFOA and 24 conventional surgery) SFOA in skeletal class III dentofacial deformities Conventional surgery Postsurgical stability Lateral cephalograph cephalometric measurements Morphological features
Jeong et al./2017[38] Prospective 52 conventional jaw surgery (29.7 Average age) and 45 pts in SFOA (23.7 average age) SFOA bimaxillary surgery Conventional surgery, bimaxillary surgery Postoperative skeletal and dental changes Lateral cephalograph cephalometric measurements Morphological features
Feu et al./2017[39] Prospective 16 pts, Conventional jaw surgery (n, 8; 26.8±7.1 years) and SFOA (n, 8; 22.9±5.4 years) SFOA in skeletal class III dentofacial deformities Conventional surgery OQLQ and the OHIP-short version (OHIP-14) OHIP-14 Oral health-related QoL
Wang et al./2017[40] Longitudinal prospective cohort 50 pts, Conventional jaw surgery (n, 25; 25.1±6.8 years) and SFOA (n, 25; 25.4±6.4 years) SFOA in skeletal class III dentofacial deformities Conventional surgery OHRQoL OHRQoL questionnaire Oral health-related QoL
Pelo et al./2017[41] Retrospective cohort 30 pts (30.2±4.3 years) SFOA in skeletal malocclusion Conventional surgery Level of satisfaction and QoL OHIP, orthognathic QoL questionnaire OQLQ-22 Oral health-related QoL
Zingler et al./2017[42] Prospective cohort 9 pts ( 26.7 years) SFOA in skeletal class III and Class II dentofacial deformities Psychological and biological changes in SFOA OQLQ questionnaire, sense of coherence SOC-29 and longitudinal day-to-day. crevicular fluid by bead-based multiplex assays Oral health-related QoL biomarkers assessment
Hernandez-Alfaro et al./2017[43] Prospective 8 pts (mean age 26.3 years) Surgery-first class III patients Surgery-early class III patients Complications, final outcome Plaque index, PPD, gingival recession, bleeding on probing, and CAL. satisfaction with treatment (VAS) Effects of Tx/Functional status/QoL
Jeong et al./2018[44] Retrospective 104 Patients (23.3 years, mean age) with SFOA, and 51 with conventional surgery (23.1 years, mean age) SFOA in skeletal class III dentofacial deformities Conventional surgery long-term outcomes of vertical skeletal stability Lateral cephalograph cephalometric measurements Morphological features
Holzinger et al./2018[45] Prospective 16 patients aged 18–37 years (8 female, 8 male, mean age 26 years) SFOA in skeletal malocclusion Quantitative accuracy assessment CT scan Morphological features
Guo et al./2018[46] Retrospective cohort Symmetry group (n, 17; 22.9±4.4 years) and asymmetry group (n, 12; 20.0±52.2 years) SFOA mandibular prognathism with asymmetry SFOA mandibular prognathism without facial asymmetry Corrective outcomes and transverse stability CT scan Morphological features
Lian et al./2018[47] Retrospective n, 37, females 24.0±4.9 years 2-step group in SFOA 3-step group in SFOA Stability, and treatment efficiency Lateral cephalograph cephalometric measurements Morphological features
Liao et al./2018[48] Retrospective cohort n, 41, 24.0±4.9 years SFOA in Skeletal Class III facial asymmetry Long-term outcomes of bimaxillary surgery Photographs and study models Morphological features
Brucoli et al./2018[49] Prospective 33 pts, Conventional jaw surgery (n, 25; 25.0±5.5 years) and SFOA (n, 8; 35.6±13.4 years) SFOA in skeletal class III dentofacial deformities Conventional surgery Oral health impact profile questionnaire, TCI, RSA, Italian validation of the PIDAQ, BDIII, the RSES Psychosocial well-being, selfe-steem, anxiety, and QoL Oral health-related QoL
Liao and Lo/2018[50] n, 53 (n, 39 with genioplasty and n, 14 without genioplasty. Mean age, 25±6 years Skeletal Class III patients surgery-first approach Establish guidelines for the surgical occlusion setup of SFOA, evaluate accuracy Study models and computer-aided surgical simulation Guidelines, characteristics, and accuracy
Watanabe et al./2019[51] Retrospective study 5 patients (19–26 years) with facial asymmetry in hemifacial microsomia Surgery-first approach combined with mandibular distraction Soft tissue changes Photographs Morphological features

SFOA: Surgery-first orthognathic approach, IVRO: Intraoral vertical ramus osteotomy, MMC: Maxillomandibular complex, QoL: Quality of life, OQLQ: Orthognathic quality of life questionnaire, OHIP: Oral health impact profile, SOC-29: 29-Item scale, PPD: Probing pocket depth, CT: Computed tomography, CAL: Clinical attachment level, VAS: Visual analogue scale, OHRQoL: Oral health-related quality of life, 3D: 3-Dimensional, OQLQ: Orthognathic quality of life questionnaire, VAS: Visual analog scale, TCI: Temperament and character inventory, RSA: Resilience scale for adults, PIDAQ: Psychological impact of dental aesthetics questionnaire, BDIII: Beck depression inventory second edition, RSES: Rosenberg self-esteem scale, MC: Modified-conventional, Tx: Treatment

Table 3 Studies excluded from the scoping review (n=19).
Study author Reason for exclusion
Nagasaka et al. 2009[13] Case report
Yu et al. 2010[52] Case report
Liou et al. 2011[20] Technique article
Villegas et al. 2012[53] Case report
Kim et al. 2013[54] Presurgical phase duration unclear or more than 1 month before surgery
Joh et al. 2013[55] Presurgical phase duration unclear or more than 1 month before surgery
Park et al. 2013[27] Case report
Uribe et al. 2013[56] Case report
Teng and Liou 2014[57] Animal study
Aristizábal et al. 2015[58] Case report
Huang et al. 2015[59] Opinion article
Uribe et al. 2015[60] Case report
Pelo et al. 2016[61] Opinion article
Zhou et al. 2016[62] Case report
Zhou et al. 2016[63] Pre surgical phase more than 1 month before surgery
Gandedkar et al. 2016[15] Case series
Larson et al. 2017[64] Presurgical phase duration unclear or more than 1 month before surgery
Choi and Bradley 2017[65] Opinion article
Aristizábal et al. 2018[66] Case report

The outcomes were further categorized into the following domains using the method described by Sinha et al.[67] and Tsichlaki et al.[19]

  1. Morphological features or changes in maxillofacial skeleton and occlusion.

  2. Psychosocial well-being including quality of life outcome.

  3. Functional status.

  4. Health resource utilization.

  5. Adverse effects of SFOA.

RESULTS

Framework Stage 5: collating, summarizing and reporting the results

The initial database and additional search resulted in 525 records, of which 54 potentially relevant articles were retrieved in full. 35 studies met the selection criteria following screening and were included in the scoping review with the results of the search depicted in the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses flow chart [Figure 1]. The studies included in the review are shown in Table 2, and excluded studies with reasons are enumerated in Table 3. Morphological features and oral HRQoL were evaluated in the majority of studies. Morphological features or changes in maxillofacial skeleton and occlusion (n = 25, 71.42%) and psychosocial well-being including quality of life outcome (n = 8, 22.85%) were well represented with under-representation of functional status (n = 1, 2.85%), health resource utilization (n = 0), and adverse effects (n = 1, 2.85 %) [Figure 2]. No randomized control trials (RCTs) were identified with majority of the studies being retrospective in nature.

Figure 1
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses flow chart.
Figure 2
Pie chart showing surgery-first orthognathic approach outcome domains.

DISCUSSION

This is the first of its kind scoping review of studies that address selection of outcomes for use in SFOA clinical trials. Five outcome domains were identified, and the domains were examined for their degree of representation in the available literature. Also, to determine whether any recommendations could be made for the development of COS. Overall, the scoping review shows that SFOA evidence is in its formative stage with much emphasis placed on the assessment of morphological features and in determining the quality of life.

Clinical trials are only as credible as their outcomes.[17] Core outcome set is an agreed, standardized group of outcomes to be reported by all the trials within the research field.[68] COS provides a template for clinical trials such that the future clinical trials that follow the COS will have increased homogeneity, facilitate meta-analysis, reduce the risk of reporting bias, and involve a wide range of stakeholders (e.g., patients, caregivers, and health-care providers). Further, the tenets of COS state that, if no satisfactory core outcome set is found, and there is a need to develop one, then, a “scoping review” could be used as a conduit in establishing an informed base to conduct meaningful qualitative research (e.g., systematic research). Further, the scoping review assists in identifying the potential outcomes and ranks the outcomes to determine a “core” set.[69] Although this scoping review might be unable to recommend standard COS, this scoping review has identified five outcome domains that are measured in the existing literature pertaining to SFOA. Among the 5 identified outcome domains, 2 are over-represented and 3 are under-represented [Figure 2].

Furthermore, this scoping review did not identify any RCT within the SFOA research, indicating that more pertinent research encompassing RCTs are required to arrive at formulating COS. However, the fact that many prospective studies are being carried out is itself promising in nature, and in the future, this will allow researchers and readers to make best use of the available reported trails to formulate the research question.

The shortcomings of this scoping review are predetermined outcomes and exclusion of studies having sample size <5. With outcomes being predetermined, this could have precluded from exploring other domains. Nonetheless, this is the first of its kind scoping review intended for mapping outcomes and provides plausible recommendations to develop COS for SFOA, and hence, it was essential to identify the more common outcomes and interventions. The decision to exclude case reports and studies involving less than five cases was deliberate to involve more meaningful data which could assist in identifying the more common outcome domains.

CONCLUSIONS

The scoping review shows that limited research has been carried out in SFOA. The outcome domains that are over-represented are morphological features or changes in maxillofacial skeleton and occlusion and psychosocial well-being including quality of life outcome. However, outcomes such as functional status, health resource utilization, and adverse effects of SOFA were under-represented. Future SFOA clinical trials should consider these aforementioned under-represented outcome domains to address the SFOA treatment modality in a comprehensive way to better understand the treatment approach and enhance the outcome consistency.

Declaration of patient consent

Patient's consent not required as there are no patients in the study.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. , , , , , , et al. A scoping review of scoping reviews: Advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency. Res Synth Methods. 2014;5:371-85.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. , , . What are scoping studies? A review of the nursing literature. Int J Nurs Stud. 2009;46:1386-400.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. , , . Enhancing the scoping study methodology: A large, inter-professional team's experience with arksey and O'malley's framework. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;13:48.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. . Studying the Organisation and Delivery of Health Services: Research Methods. London: Routledge, Psychology Press; .
  5. , . Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8:19-32.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  6. , , . Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. 2010;5:69.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. , , . Surgery first in orthognathic surgery: A systematic review of the literature. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2016;149:448-62.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. , , , . Surgery-first approach in skeletal class III malocclusion treated with 2-jaw surgery: Evaluation of surgical movement and postoperative orthodontic treatment. J Craniofac Surg. 2010;21:332-8.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. , , , . “Surgery first” in bimaxillary orthognathic surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011;69:e201-7.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. , , . Surgery first in orthognathic surgery: What have we learned? A comprehensive workflow based on 45 consecutive cases. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014;72:376-90.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. , , , , . Postoperative stability for surgery-first approach using intraoral vertical ramus osteotomy: 12 month follow-up. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014;52:539-44.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. , , , , , , et al. Surgery-first accelerated orthognathic surgery: Postoperative rapid orthodontic tooth movement. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011;69:781-5.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. , , , . “Surgery first” skeletal class III correction using the skeletal anchorage system. J Clin Orthod. 2009;43:97-105.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. , , , , , . The application of orthodontic miniplates to Sendai surgery first. Semin Orthod. 2018;24:17-36.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  15. , , . Surgery-first orthognathic approach case series: Salient features and guidelines. J Orthod Sci. 2016;5:35-42.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. . Standardising outcomes for clinical trials and systematic reviews. Trials. 2007;8:39.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. , , , , , , et al. OMERACT: An international initiative to improve outcome measurement in rheumatology. Trials. 2007;8:38.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. , , , , , , et al. The harmonizing outcome measures for eczema (HOME) roadmap: A methodological framework to develop core sets of outcome measurements in dermatology. J Invest Dermatol. 2015;135:24-30.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. , , , . A scoping review of outcomes related to orthodontic treatment measured in cleft lip and palate. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2017;20:55-64.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. , , , , , , et al. Surgery-first accelerated orthognathic surgery: Orthodontic guidelines and setup for model surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011;69:771-80.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  21. , , , , . Presurgical orthodontics versus no presurgical orthodontics: Treatment outcome of surgical-orthodontic correction for skeletal class III open bite. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;126:2074-83.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. , , , , . Comparison of transverse dimensional changes in surgical skeletal class III patients with and without presurgical orthodontics. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010;68:1807-12.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. , , , , , , et al. Comparison of progressive cephalometric changes and postsurgical stability of skeletal class III correction with and without presurgical orthodontic treatment. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011;69:1469-77.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. , , , . Skeletal and dental variables related to the stability of orthognathic surgery in skeletal class III malocclusion with a surgery-first approach. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2013;71:e215-23.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. , , , , . Stability of mandibular setback surgery with and without presurgical orthodontics. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014;72:779-87.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. , , , , . Effect of occlusal vertical dimension changes on postsurgical skeletal changes in a surgery-first approach for skeletal class III deformities. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2014;146:612-9.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. , , , . Maxillary incisor inclination of skeletal class III patients treated with extraction of the upper first premolars and two-jaw surgery: Conventional orthognathic surgery vs surgery-first approach. Angle Orthod. 2014;84:720-9.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. , , . Posterior pharyngeal airway in clockwise rotation of maxillomandibular complex using surgery-first orthognathic approach. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2015;3:e485.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. , , , . The reliability of a surgery-first orthognathic approach without presurgical orthodontic treatment for skeletal class III dentofacial deformity. Ann Plast Surg. 2015;74:333-41.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. , , , , . The surgery-first approach in orthognathic surgery: A retrospective study of 50 cases. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015;44:1463-7.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. , , . Skeletal stability of surgery-first bimaxillary orthognathic surgery for skeletal class III malocclusion, using standardized criteria. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016;45:35-40.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. , , , . Patient's satisfaction in skeletal class III cases treated with two-jaw surgery using orthognathic quality of life questionnaire: Conventional three-stage method versus surgery-first approach. J Craniofac Surg. 2015;26:2086-93.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. , , , , , , et al. Correlation between skeletal and dental changes after mandibular setback surgery-first orthodontic treatment: Cone-beam computed tomography-generated half-cephalograms. Korean J Orthod. 2015;45:59-65.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. , , , . The changes of oral health-related quality of life and satisfaction after surgery-first orthognathic approach: A longitudinal prospective study. Head Face Med. 2016;12:2.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. , , , , . Stability of pre-orthodontic orthognathic surgery using intraoral vertical ramus osteotomy versus conventional treatment. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016;74:610-9.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. , , , , , , et al. Comparison of orthodontics-first and surgery-first approach in positional changes of the condyle after mandibular setback surgery using three-dimensional analysis. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016;74:2487-96.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. , , , , . Comparison of mandibular stability after SSRO with surgery-first approach versus conventional ortho-first approach. J Plast Surg Hand Surg. 2016;50:50-5.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. , , , , . Can a surgery-first orthognathic approach reduce the total treatment time. ? Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2017;46:473-82.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. , , , , . Oral health-related quality of life changes in patients with severe class III malocclusion treated with the 2-jaw surgery-first approach. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2017;151:1048-57.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. , , , , , , et al. Timing of orthognathic surgery on the changes of oral health-related quality of life in Chinese orthognathic surgery patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2017;151:565-71.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. , , , , , , et al. Surgery-first orthognathic approach vs traditional orthognathic approach: Oral health-related quality of life assessed with 2 questionnaires. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2017;152:250-4.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. , , , , , , et al. Surgery-first approach in orthognathic surgery: Psychological and biological aspects a prospective cohort study. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2017;45:1293-301.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. , , , , , , et al. Inferior subapical osteotomy for dentoalveolar decompensation of class III malocclusion in “surgery-first” and “surgery-early” orthognathic treatment. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2017;46:80-5.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. , , . Large-scale study of long-term vertical skeletal stability in a surgery-first orthognathic approach without presurgical orthodontic treatment: Part II. J Craniofac Surg. 2018;29:953-8.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. , , , , , , et al. Accuracy of soft tissue prediction in surgery-first treatment concept in orthognathic surgery: A prospective study. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2018;46:1455-60.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. , , , , , , et al. Corrective outcome and transverse stability after orthognathic surgery using a surgery-first approach in mandibular prognathism with and without facial asymmetry. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2018;126:22-30.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. , , , , , , et al. Treatment efficiency and stability of skeletal class III malocclusion with a surgery-first approach. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2018;21:90-5.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. , , , , . Long-term outcomes of bimaxillary surgery for treatment of asymmetric skeletal class III deformity using surgery-first approach. Clin Oral Investig. 2019;23:1685-93.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. , , , , . Psychodynamic features associated with orthognathic surgery: A comparison between conventional orthognathic treatment and “surgery-first” approach. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2019;77:157-63.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. , . Surgical occlusion setup in correction of skeletal class III deformity using surgery-first approach: Guidelines, characteristics and accuracy. Sci Rep. 2018;8:11673.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. , , , . Surgery-first orthognathic surgery for severe facial asymmetry combined with mandibular distraction osteogenesis using a three-dimensional internal distractor. J Craniofac Surg. 2019;30:39-46.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. , , , , . A surgery-first approach in surgical-orthodontic treatment of mandibular prognathism a case report. Chang Gung Med. J. 2010;33:699-705.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. , , , . Rotation of the maxillomandibular complex to enhance esthetics using a “surgery first” approach. J Clin Orthod. 2012;46:85-91.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. , , , , . Postsurgical stability after mandibular setback surgery with minimal orthodontic preparation following upper premolar extraction. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2013;71:1968.e1-1968.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. , , , , , , et al. Evaluation of minimal versus conventional presurgical orthodontics in skeletal class III patients treated with two-jaw surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2013;71:1733-41.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. , , , , , , et al. Treatment of severe facial asymmetry using virtual three-dimensional planning and a “surgery first” protocol. J Clin Orthod. 2013;47:471-84.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. , . Interdental osteotomies induce regional acceleratory phenomenon and accelerate orthodontic tooth movement. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014;72:19-29.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. , , . The “surgery first” approach with passive self-ligating brackets for expedited treatment of skeletal class III malocclusion. J Clin Orthod. 2015;49:361-70.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. , . Orthodontic principles and guidelines for the surgery-first approach to orthognathic surgery. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015;44:1457-62.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. , , , . Increasing orthodontic and orthognathic surgery treatment efficiency with a modified surgery-first approach. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2015;148:838-48.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. , , , , , , et al. The medical legal aspects of surgery first and a new model of consent form. J Craniofac Surg. 2016;27:1750-3.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. , , , . Minimal presurgical orthodontics for a skeletal class III patient with mandibular asymmetry. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2016;149:99-113.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. , , , , . Progressive changes in patients with skeletal class III malocclusion treated by 2-jaw surgery with minimal and conventional presurgical orthodontics: A comparative study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2016;149:244-52.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  64. , , , , , , et al. Comparing stability of mandibular setback versus 2-jaw surgery in class III patients with minimal presurgical orthodontics. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2017;75:1240-8.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. , . Surgery first orthognathic approach without presurgical orthodontic treatment: Questions and answers. J Craniofac Surg. 2017;28:1330-3.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. , , , . Surgery-first approach with 3D customized passive self-ligating brackets and 3D surgical planning: Case report. Dental Press J Orthod. 2018;23:47-57.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. , , , . A systematic review of studies that aim to determine which outcomes to measure in clinical trials in children. PLoS Med. 2008;5:e96.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. , , , , , , et al. Developing core outcome sets for clinical trials: Issues to consider. Trials. 2012;13:132.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  69. , , . Core outcome sets. Arch Dis Child Educ Pract. 2018;103:163-6.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Fulltext Views
16,554

PDF downloads
31,201
View/Download PDF
Download Citations
BibTeX
RIS
Show Sections

Suggested read for related articles:

© Copyright 2024 – APOS Trends in Orthodontics – All rights reserved.
Published by Scientific Scholar on behalf of Asian Pacific Orthodontic Society, Singapore.

ISSN (Print): 2321-4600
ISSN (Online): 2321-1407