Surgery-first Versus Orthodontics-first in Orthognathic Surgery: A Systematic Review of Comparative Outcomes

Conventional orthognathic surgery has traditionally followed an orthodontics-first approach (OFA), whereas the surgery-first approach (SFA) has gained attention for its potential to shorten overall treatment time and provide earlier esthetic improvement; however, uncertainties remain regarding skeletal stability, condylar adaptation, temporomandibular joint (TMJ) outcomes, and patient-reported measures. This systematic review compared the clinical outcomes of SFA and OFA in orthognathic surgery, focusing on treatment duration, skeletal stability, condylar changes, TMJ symptoms, patient-reported quality of life, and cost-effectiveness. A systematic search of the Web of Science Core Collection (2009-2025) identified comparative human studies that directly contrasted SFA and OFA, and nine studies met the inclusion criteria for qualitative synthesis. Data were extracted on study design, surgical procedures, outcomes, and follow-up, and risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Across studies, SFA consistently shortened overall treatment duration compared with OFA. Skeletal stability at approximately 1 year was broadly comparable between approaches, although counterclockwise mandibular rotation and vertical dimension control were highlighted as critical factors in SFA. Condylar displacement and remodeling patterns were similar, with larger immediate postoperative shifts in SFA that tended to regress toward baseline. TMJ symptoms generally improved after surgery in both groups without meaningful between-group differences. Patient-reported outcomes improved in both cohorts, with SFA offering earlier esthetic benefit by avoiding the preoperative decompensation phase. Cost-effectiveness analyses indicated similar overall costs but a shorter time-to-benefit with SFA. Within the limitations of predominantly observational designs, SFA appears to offer shorter overall treatment time with broadly comparable skeletal, condylar, TMJ, and quality-of-life outcomes to OFA, underscoring the importance of careful case selection, strict protocol adherence, and prospective standardized research to confirm long-term stability and optimize clinical protocols.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Contemporary Clinical Dentistry
Published
2025-10-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.4103/ccd.ccd_502_25
Primary Topic
Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Surgery-first Versus Orthodontics-first in Orthognathic Surgery: A Systematic Review of Comparative Outcomes

Ömer Can Manav, Melis Büsra Askin
Contemporary Clinical Dentistry
Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
article

Surgery-first Versus Orthodontics-first in Orthognathic Surgery: A Systematic Review of Comparative Outcomes

Ömer Can Manav, Melis Büsra Askin
article en

Abstract

Conventional orthognathic surgery has traditionally followed an orthodontics-first approach (OFA), whereas the surgery-first approach (SFA) has gained attention for its potential to shorten overall treatment time and provide earlier esthetic improvement; however, uncertainties remain regarding skeletal stability, condylar adaptation, temporomandibular joint (TMJ) outcomes, and patient-reported measures. This systematic review compared the clinical outcomes of SFA and OFA in orthognathic surgery, focusing on treatment duration, skeletal stability, condylar changes, TMJ symptoms, patient-reported quality of life, and cost-effectiveness. A systematic search of the Web of Science Core Collection (2009-2025) identified comparative human studies that directly contrasted SFA and OFA, and nine studies met the inclusion criteria for qualitative synthesis. Data were extracted on study design, surgical procedures, outcomes, and follow-up, and risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Across studies, SFA consistently shortened overall treatment duration compared with OFA. Skeletal stability at approximately 1 year was broadly comparable between approaches, although counterclockwise mandibular rotation and vertical dimension control were highlighted as critical factors in SFA. Condylar displacement and remodeling patterns were similar, with larger immediate postoperative shifts in SFA that tended to regress toward baseline. TMJ symptoms generally improved after surgery in both groups without meaningful between-group differences. Patient-reported outcomes improved in both cohorts, with SFA offering earlier esthetic benefit by avoiding the preoperative decompensation phase. Cost-effectiveness analyses indicated similar overall costs but a shorter time-to-benefit with SFA. Within the limitations of predominantly observational designs, SFA appears to offer shorter overall treatment time with broadly comparable skeletal, condylar, TMJ, and quality-of-life outcomes to OFA, underscoring the importance of careful case selection, strict protocol adherence, and prospective standardized research to confirm long-term stability and optimize clinical protocols.

Contemporary Clinical DentistryVol. 16(4)
Ankara University (TR), Yozgat Bozok Üniversitesi (TR)
Reduced inequalities
Openalex Percentile: Top 33%
Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.