FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2790457281> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2790457281 endingPage "169" @default.
• W2790457281 startingPage "168" @default.
• W2790457281 abstract "We praise the authors of the article entitled “Surgery-first orthognathic approach vs traditional orthognathic approach: oral health-related quality of life assessed with 2 questionnaires” (Pelo S, Gasparini G, Garagiola U, Cordaro M, Di Nardo F, Staderini E, et al. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2017;152:250-4) for their involvement in advancing the specialty of orthodontics and surgical disciplines. In recent years, we have come across a shift in the approach toward management of patients with dentofacial skeletal deformities. With the traditional orthognathic surgical approach, orthodontists and patients need tremendous patience to finally see the outcome of orthognathic surgery. However, recently, the structure and process of managing a skeletal adult patient has taken a new dimension with the introduction of the surgery-first approach to orthognathic surgical protocols. Although it is a promising venture, there are no strong conclusions regarding the outcome of the protocols or the associated oral health-related quality of life.1Peiró-Guijarro M.A. Guijarro-Martínez R. Hernández-Alfaro F. Surgery first in orthognathic surgery: a systematic review of the literature.Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2016; 149: 448-462Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (72) Google Scholar, 2Al-Dohan M.A. Al-Jewair T.S. Limited evidence suggests that presurgical orthodontics may not be needed for orthognathic surgery patients.J Evid Based Dent Pract. 2017; 17: 39-41Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (6) Google Scholar, 3Huang S. Chen W. Ni Z. Zhou Y. 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: 2Crossref PubMed Scopus (27) Google Scholar, 4Yang L. Xiao Y.D. Liang Y.J. Wang X. Li J.Y. Liao G.Q. Does the surgery-first approach produce better outcomes in orthognathic surgery? A systematic review and meta-analysis.J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2017; 75: 2422-2429Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (46) Google Scholar This study is a move forward with the cue to understand further the merits of the approaches. However, we have a few concerns that may need clarification.1.What is the nature of a skeletal Class II malocclusion with a mild curve of Spee? All the subjects required bimaxillary surgeries. We wondered how the clinicians managed to selectively choose those with a mild curve of Spee in the skeletal Class II deformity who required bimaxillary surgeries. We would like to know the severity of a skeletal Class II or Class III deformity that can have profound implications on the differences in the outcome of both approaches and the associated oral health-related quality of life.2.What is the distribution of Class II and Class III subjects in each group? We could not find the details in the article. The esthetic and functional concerns between these types of deformities could differ, and accordingly, quality of life could vary. Have the authors considered comparing the quality of life outcomes between the skeletal deformities across the groups?3.It is not clear from the description in the “Material and methods” section what the timeline was for the administration of the questionnaires in both groups: “… the patients were given the following self-administered questionnaires before bracket placement, 1 month preoperatively and 1 month postoperatively for both groups: the OQLQ-22 and the OHIP-14.”4.Quality of life was assessed 1 month postoperatively, which referred to the end of the protocol. However, we are concerned that assessment of the health-related quality of life cannot be limited to that time point (1 month postoperatively). The reason could be the difference in the quantum of postsurgical orthodontic treatment phase associated with both approaches. Quality of life assessment may need to be more elaborate during this phase of treatment (postsurgical orthodontics) to represent the true differences in the approaches. Although we understand that the investigators used exclusively the Orthognathic Quality of Life Questionnaire (OQLQ-22), it seems prudent to assess the quality of life comprehensively. We would appreciate clarifications regarding these concerns. Surgery-first orthognathic approach vs traditional orthognathic approach: Oral health-related quality of life assessed with 2 questionnairesAmerican Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial OrthopedicsVol. 152Issue 2PreviewThe purposes of the study were to investigate and evaluate the differences detected by the patients between the traditional orthognathic approach and the surgery-first one in terms of level of satisfaction and quality of life. Full-Text PDF Authors' responseAmerican Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial OrthopedicsVol. 153Issue 2PreviewWe thank the authors of the letter for their interest in our article and for their interesting questions. We will try to respond to their concerns by answering them point by point. Full-Text PDF" @default.
• W2790457281 created "2018-03-29" @default.
• W2790457281 creator A5027876213 @default.
• W2790457281 creator A5061906483 @default.
• W2790457281 date "2018-02-01" @default.
• W2790457281 modified "2023-09-25" @default.
• W2790457281 title "Surgery-first approach vs traditional approach" @default.
• W2790457281 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2017.11.013" @default.
• W2790457281 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29407490" @default.
• W2790457281 hasPublicationYear "2018" @default.
• W2790457281 type Work @default.
• W2790457281 sameAs 2790457281 @default.
• W2790457281 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2790457281 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2790457281 hasAuthorship W2790457281A5027876213 @default.
• W2790457281 hasAuthorship W2790457281A5061906483 @default.
• W2790457281 hasBestOaLocation W27904572811 @default.
• W2790457281 hasConcept C159110408 @default.
• W2790457281 hasConcept C199343813 @default.
• W2790457281 hasConcept C2776347944 @default.
• W2790457281 hasConcept C2779951463 @default.
• W2790457281 hasConcept C2908788423 @default.
• W2790457281 hasConcept C29694066 @default.
• W2790457281 hasConcept C2992672162 @default.
• W2790457281 hasConcept C61434518 @default.
• W2790457281 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2790457281 hasConceptScore W2790457281C159110408 @default.
• W2790457281 hasConceptScore W2790457281C199343813 @default.
• W2790457281 hasConceptScore W2790457281C2776347944 @default.
• W2790457281 hasConceptScore W2790457281C2779951463 @default.
• W2790457281 hasConceptScore W2790457281C2908788423 @default.
• W2790457281 hasConceptScore W2790457281C29694066 @default.
• W2790457281 hasConceptScore W2790457281C2992672162 @default.
• W2790457281 hasConceptScore W2790457281C61434518 @default.
• W2790457281 hasConceptScore W2790457281C71924100 @default.
• W2790457281 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W2790457281 hasLocation W27904572811 @default.
• W2790457281 hasLocation W27904572812 @default.
• W2790457281 hasOpenAccess W2790457281 @default.
• W2790457281 hasPrimaryLocation W27904572811 @default.
• W2790457281 hasRelatedWork W1996164742 @default.
• W2790457281 hasRelatedWork W2007084253 @default.
• W2790457281 hasRelatedWork W2066421452 @default.
• W2790457281 hasRelatedWork W2146695875 @default.
• W2790457281 hasRelatedWork W2346892955 @default.
• W2790457281 hasRelatedWork W2765825434 @default.
• W2790457281 hasRelatedWork W2766038674 @default.
• W2790457281 hasRelatedWork W3135458096 @default.
• W2790457281 hasRelatedWork W3148626104 @default.
• W2790457281 hasRelatedWork W3156642445 @default.
• W2790457281 hasVolume "153" @default.
• W2790457281 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2790457281 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2790457281 magId "2790457281" @default.
• W2790457281 workType "article" @default.