RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine whether orthognathic surgery is associated with any complications, and what type of complications may occur. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were obtained using PubMed (MEDLINE), ISI Web of Knowledge, Ovid, Cochrane Library, Embase Library, and an additional manual search. The titles and abstracts of the electronic search results were screened and evaluated by two observers for eligibility according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. RESULTS: A total of 1924 articles were identified, and we retained 44 articles for the final analysis. The Prisma diagram flowchart demonstrates our selection scheme. For the purpose of this study, the Cochrane data extraction form was modified. One review author extracted data from the included studies, and the second author checked all of the forms. The hierarchy of evidence classification from the UK NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination was used to assess the level of evidence for the retrieved studies. CONCLUSIONS: An evaluation of the obtained studies revealed the existence of a large number of varied complications associated with orthognathic surgery procedures. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Oral and maxillofacial surgeons, orthodontists, and the surgical team need to prevent such complications during preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative periods to increase the safety of orthognathic surgery procedures. This review was registered on http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO as CRD42013004711.
Asunto(s)
Complicaciones Intraoperatorias , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Ortognáticos , Complicaciones Posoperatorias , Periodo Preoperatorio , Humanos , Factores de RiesgoRESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: This study provides a systematic review of the current scientific literature on three-dimensional (3D) cephalometry. The null hypothesis was that 3D cephalometry is an accurate and reproducible diagnostic technique. To examine this hypothesis, the following three research questions were proposed: 1) What is the accuracy of 3D cephalometric measurements compared to in vitro measurements? 2) What is the intra- and inter-observer reliability of the selection of 3D cephalometric landmarks? 3) What is the reproducibility of the linear and angular measurements? METHODS: A comprehensive database search was performed, using Medline, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science and Google Scholar. The titles and abstracts obtained from the search were screened and evaluated by two observers according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. RESULTS: The evaluation process yielded 21 articles. A high level of agreement (<1 mm) between the in vitro measurements and those obtained from 3D cephalometry was observed and some landmarks provided highly reproducible results. However, the linear (0.04-7.49 mm) and angular (0.99-9.30°) measurements differed greatly. CONCLUSIONS: The null hypothesis was rejected. This study indicates critical points regarding 3D cephalometry and provides guidance for future research in this field.