Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 42742752

Assessment of temporomandibular joint space changes after orthognathic surgery in skeletal malocclusion patients: a systematic review.

Minakshi Tibrewal·Dhruv Ahuja·Puneet Batra·Sana Bint Aziz·Ashish Kumar Singh
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

PURPOSE: To interpret postoperative changes in temporomandibular joint (TMJ) joint space dimensions and condylar position following orthognathic surgery in patients with skeletal malocclusions, and to determine whether reported alterations represent clinically meaningful displacement or physiological adaptive remodeling. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A comprehensive search of PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Science, EBSCOhost, and Cochrane Library was performed to assess pre- and postoperative TMJ changes using three-dimensional imaging. Joint spaces including anterior (AJS), superior (SJS), and posterior (PJS) and condylar morphology were evaluated. Methodological quality was appraised using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklist. Due to methodological and clinical heterogeneity, findings were synthesized narratively with attention to malocclusion type and surgical movement. RESULTS: A total of 16 studies consisting 628 patients undergoing BSSO, Le Fort I osteotomy, vertical ramus osteotomy, or bimaxillary surgery were included. Most studies reported minor, adaptive postoperative changes in AJS, SJS, and PJS. Class II patients showed more consistent increases in AJS/SJS, whereas Class III patients demonstrated variable posterior or anterior remodelling depending on surgical movement. Volumetric analyses revealed region-specific adaptations without significant condylar displacement. Postoperative temporomandibular disorder symptoms were infrequent, and no consistent evidence supported detrimental TMJ effects attributable to surgery. CONCLUSION: Postoperative TMJ joint space changes after orthognathic surgery primarily represent physiological adaptive remodeling rather than pathological condylar displacement, with reported variability driven by malocclusion type, surgical movement, fixation method, and imaging protocol. Recognizing these predictable patterns is essential to prevent overinterpretation of postoperative imaging and to improve clinical assessment through standardized three-dimensional and long-term evaluation strategies.

Explore related subjects

HumansTemporomandibular JointOrthognathic Surgical ProceduresMalocclusionImaging, Three-DimensionalMandibular CondyleCondylar positionJoint space analysisOrthognathic surgeryTemporomandibular jointJournal ArticleSystematic ReviewReview

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Minakshi Tibrewal, Dhruv Ahuja, Puneet Batra, Sana Bint Aziz, Ashish Kumar Singh. 2026-09-15. Assessment of temporomandibular joint space changes after orthognathic surgery in skeletal malocclusion patients: a systematic review.. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10006-026-01635-4

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

Humans subjectImaging, Three-Dimensional subjectJournal Article subjectJournal Article; Systematic Review; Review resourceSystematic reviews study

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2026

Artificial intelligence in treatment prediction for skeletal Class III malocclusion: A systematic review.

In skeletal Class III patients, treatment options range from orthodontics to orthognathic surgery. Choosing the optimal approach requires a comprehensive clinical evaluation, which may be supported by AI tools. The aim of this study was to assess the performance of AI models in predicting the need for orthognathic surgery and in identifying predictors influencing treatment decisions. A PRISMA-guided electronic database search (PubMed, Web of Science; 2009-2024; English/French) was performed to identify studies using machine learning (ML) or deep learning (DL) on cephalometric and clinical data. After screening and assessment for eligibility, 15 studies were critically appraised. Model performance was summarized using accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and the area under the curve (AUC). ML algorithms (particularly Random Forest and XGBoost) and DL models (ResNet-based convolutional neural networks (CNNs)) achieved high accuracy for predicting surgical need. Frequently selected predictors included Wits appraisal, ANB angle, the maxillomandibular ratio (Mx/Md), overjet, and the divergence of the lower gonial angle. AI methods show promise for assisting treatment decisions in Class III malocclusion, with Random Forest and XGBoost performing well on tabular cephalometric data and CNNs on imaging. Larger, multicentre datasets and external validation are needed to improve reliability, address bias, and support clinical implementation.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

Robotic assistance in total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis of leg length, cup orientation, and early outcomes.

This review examined whether robotic assistance alters postoperative leg-length discrepancy (LLD), acetabular cup orientation, or early hip-specific outcomes relative to conventional total hip arthroplasty (THA). We searched PubMed and Web of Science through May 2026 for comparative English-language reports. Study eligibility, data extraction, and methodological appraisal were undertaken independently by two reviewers. Mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated in Review Manager 5.4. Model selection was based on the target estimand and anticipated clinical and methodological diversity; leave-one-out and alternative-model sensitivity analyses were undertaken for heterogeneous outcomes. The protocol is registered with PROSPERO (CRD420261454043). The review included seven studies and 968 participants. Compared with conventional THA, robot-assisted THA yielded a smaller postoperative LLD (MD = -2.02, 95% CI -3.46 to -0.58; P = 0.006) and a higher Harris Hip Score (MD = 2.96, 95% CI 1.12 to 4.80; P = 0.002). Mean cup anteversion was lower in the robotic group (MD = -1.52, 95% CI -2.29 to -0.76; P < 0.0001), whereas cup inclination did not differ (MD = -0.71, 95% CI -3.26 to 1.83; P = 0.58). The robotic group also had higher Forgotten Joint Score (MD = 14.68, 95% CI 5.02 to 24.33; P = 0.003) and Oxford Hip Score values (MD = 2.61, 95% CI 0.71 to 4.51; P = 0.007). Robotic assistance was linked to a modest improvement in leg-length restoration and to higher scores on several early functional measures. The limited number of studies, predominance of nonrandomized designs, and marked heterogeneity in some analyses temper the certainty of these findings.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

Do wound protectors reduce contamination in total shoulder arthroplasty? A randomized controlled trial.

HYPOTHESIS: Cutibacterium acnes is the most frequent cause of shoulder prosthetic joint infection with skin edges as a source of wound contamination. The primary purpose of this study was to determine if the use of a wound protector device decreases the deep wound bacterial colonization in primary shoulder arthroplasty. The secondary purpose was to assess the effect of device usage on deltopectoral muscle and cephalic vein injury. METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized controlled trial. A total of 100 patients undergoing primary total shoulder arthroplasty were enrolled and randomized into 2 groups: a wound protector group and a control group. Five patients withdrew from the study, leaving 48 patients in the wound protector group and 47 controls. Three deep wound culture swabs were taken after final arthroplasty implantation. The surgeon also graded deltoid, pectoralis major, and cephalic vein injury on a 0-3 scale based on modification to the Tscherne classification of soft tissue injury. The primary outcome of this study was positive culture results for C acnes. Secondary outcomes included total bacterial culture positivity as well as soft tissue injury grades. A subanalysis removing likely contaminant positive cultures (growth >7 days and 1 colony only) was also performed. Comparisons between groups were made using Fisher exact test for categorical outcomes and t tests and Mann-Whitney U tests for continuous variables. RESULTS: The use of a wound protector did not result in any significant differences compared with controls in the rate of positive cultures for C acnes (15% vs. 21%, P = .593) or all bacteria (15% vs. 26%, P = .304). Removing likely contaminant positive cultures did not demonstrate any significant difference in culture positivity (9% vs. 17%, P = .355, for C acnes; 9% vs. 19%, P = .231, for all bacterial species). The wound protector group had better soft tissue injury scores for the deltoid muscle (P < .001) and pectoralis muscle (P < .001). No difference in cephalic vein injury was noted between the 2 groups (P > .05). No difference in surgical time was noted. CONCLUSION: The use of a surgical wound protector device in total shoulder arthroplasty did not significantly decrease bacterial colonization of the deep wound. However, soft tissue damage to the deltoid and pectoralis muscle was less severe in the wound protector group. These findings suggest that this device reduces iatrogenic soft tissue injury.

Humans↗