Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 0

The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.

Comparison of treatment duration and complications between surgery-first and conventional orthognathic approaches: a retrospective study

Lahtinen, Mikko, Strausz, Satu, Salonen, Paula, Stoor, Patricia, Kiukkonen, Anu·2025·European Journal of Orthodontics
DOI 10.1093/ejo/cjaf102
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objective: This study compares the surgery-first approach (SFA) and the conventional orthognathic approach (COA) in terms of total treatment duration and complications in patients with skeletal malocclusions. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 34 patients treated at Helsinki University Hospital, with 17 patients in each treatment group. The groups were matched by age, sex, and type of surgery. Treatment duration was assessed using statistical comparisons, and perioperative and postoperative complications were analyzed using logistic and Poisson regression models adjusted for age, sex, and surgery type. Results: SFA significantly reduced the total treatment duration compared to COA by eliminating the presurgical orthodontic phase (13.0 months vs. 27.67 months, P = 1.66×10−10). The groups were similar in terms of their difficulty scores according to the ICON scale (P > 0.05). However, the postsurgical orthodontic phase was significantly longer in the SFA group (11.72 months vs. 8.22 months, P = 6.18×10−13). Maxillary retrognathia was independently associated with a shorter total treatment duration, while open bite prolonged postsurgical orthodontic treatment, regardless of the surgical approach. Age was the only significant predictor of complications (P = 0.042), with older patients being at a greater risk. Conclusions: SFA is an effective alternative to COA, offering a shorter overall treatment duration while requiring longer postsurgical orthodontic management. While complication rates do not significantly differ between the approaches, older patients are at a higher risk of complications.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/ejo/cjaf102

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

Research works printed but not linked: 23

  1. Obwegeser, 1964, The indications for surgical correction of mandibular deformity by the sagittal splitting technique, Br J Oral Surg, 1, 157, 10.1016/s0007-117x(63)80067-0 · DOI
  2. Millesi, 2023, Surgery first and surgery early treatment approach in orthognathic surgery, Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am, 35, 71, 10.1016/j.coms.2022.06.010 · DOI
  3. Luther, 2003, Orthodontic preparation for orthognathic surgery: how long does it take and why? A retrospective study, Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 41, 401, 10.1016/s0266-4356(03)00163-3 · DOI
  4. Yi, 2019, Effect of conventional combined orthodontic-surgical treatment on oral health-related quality of life: a systematic review and meta-analysis, Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 156, 29, 10.1016/j.ajodo.2019.03.008 · DOI
  5. Nagasaka, 2009, Surgery first” skeletal Class III correction using the skeletal anchorage system, J Clin Orthod, 43, 97
  6. Hoang, 2021, The surgery-first approach to orthognathic surgery, J Craniofac Surg, 32, e153, 10.1097/SCS.0000000000006942 · DOI
  7. Pelo, 2017, Surgery-first orthognathic approach vs traditional orthognathic approach: oral health-related quality of life assessed with 2 questionnaires, Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 152, 250, 10.1016/j.ajodo.2016.12.022 · DOI
  8. Hernandez-Alfaro, 2022, Redefining our protocol of the orthognathic surgery-first approach after 10 years of experience, Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 60, 1102, 10.1016/j.bjoms.2022.04.006 · DOI
  9. Zheng, 2024, Effect of surgery-first approach on quality of life and mental health of orthognathic patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis, Heliyon, 10, e23285, 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e23285 · DOI
  10. Wilcko, 2001, Rapid orthodontics with alveolar reshaping: two case reports of decrowding, Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent, 21, 9
  11. Liou, 2011, Surgery-first accelerated orthognathic surgery: postoperative rapid orthodontic tooth movement, J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 69, 781, 10.1016/j.joms.2010.10.035 · DOI
  12. Peiro-Guijarro, 2016, Surgery first in orthognathic surgery: a systematic review of the literature, Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 149, 448, 10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.09.022 · DOI
  13. Khalil, 2025, Does surgery-first orthognathic approach improve quality of life of orthodontic patients with skeletal Class III malocclusion? A systematic review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, Cureus, 17, e81433, 10.7759/cureus.81433 · DOI
  14. Pelo, 2017, Risks in surgery-first orthognathic approach: complications of segmental osteotomies of the jaws. A systematic review, Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci, 21, 4
  15. Barone, 2021, Surgery-first orthognathic approach vs conventional orthognathic approach: a systematic review of systematic reviews, J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg, 122, 162, 10.1016/j.jormas.2020.08.008 · DOI
  16. Sharma, 2015, An overview of surgery-first approach: recent advances in orthognathic surgery, J Orthod Sci, 4, 9, 10.4103/2278-0203.149609 · DOI
  17. Starch-Jensen, 2023, Accuracy of orthognathic surgical planning using three-dimensional virtual techniques compared with conventional two-dimensional techniques: a systematic review, J Oral Maxillofac Res, 14, e1, 10.5037/jomr.2023.14101 · DOI
  18. Wu, 2017, Postoperative outcomes of two- and three-dimensional planning in orthognathic surgery: a comparative study, J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg, 70, 1101, 10.1016/j.bjps.2017.04.012 · DOI
  19. Fox, 2002, A comparison of the index of complexity outcome and need (ICON) with the peer assessment rating (PAR) and the index of orthodontic treatment need (IOTN), Br Dent J, 193, 225, 10.1038/sj.bdj.4801530 · DOI
  20. Kim, 2020, Factors affecting total treatment time in patients treated with orthognathic surgery using the surgery-first approach: multivariable analysis using 3D CT and scanned dental casts, J Clin Med, 9, 641, 10.3390/jcm9030641 · DOI
  21. Pelo, 2022, An Orthodontic Index assessment and its relationship with total treatment time in surgery first orthognathic approach: an observational study, Minerva Dent Oral Sci, 71, 66, 10.23736/S2724-6329.21.04546-0 · DOI
  22. Wei, 2018, Surgery-first/early-orthognathic approach may yield poorer postoperative stability than conventional orthodontics-first approach: a systematic review and meta-analysis, Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol, 126, 107, 10.1016/j.oooo.2018.02.018 · DOI
  23. Yao, 2020, Effect of surgery-first orthognathic approach on oral health-related quality of life, Angle Orthod, 90, 723, 10.2319/112619-749.1 · DOI

Metadata

Authors
Lahtinen, M., Strausz, S., Salonen, P., Stoor, P., & Kiukkonen, A.
Venue
European Journal of Orthodontics
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2025-12-16
Volume
48
Issue
1
ISSN
  • 0141-5387
  • 1460-2210
DOI
10.1093/ejo/cjaf102
Cited by
0
Language
en
Licence
academic.oup.com/pages/standard-publication-reuse-rights (vor)
Funders
Helsinki University Hospital

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparison of treatment duration and complications between surgery-first and conventional orthognathic approaches: a retrospective study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/ejo/cjaf102
The paper
Lahtinen, M., Strausz, S., Salonen, P., Stoor, P., & Kiukkonen, A. (2025). Comparison of treatment duration and complications between surgery-first and conventional orthognathic approaches: a retrospective study. European Journal of Orthodontics. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjaf102

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.