Vertical ramus osteotomy (VRO) with osteosynthesis vs Vertical ramus osteotomy (VRO) without osteosynthesis: Changes in condyle position: fossa-condyle relations for anterior (1 year post-operative)
- Population
- Adults (16 years of age or older) with an Angle Class III malocclusion (prominent lower front teeth); people with syndromes, clefts or traumatically-induced deformities excluded
- Intervention
- Vertical ramus osteotomy (VRO) with osteosynthesis
- Comparison
- Vertical ramus osteotomy (VRO) without osteosynthesis
- Outcome
- Changes in condyle position: fossa-condyle relations for anterior (1 year post-operative)
Vertical ramus osteotomy (VRO) with osteosynthesis showed no clear difference in changes in condyle position: fossa-condyle relations for anterior (1… compared with vertical ramus osteotomy (VRO) without osteosynthesis; GRADE not reported.
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Vertical ramus osteotomy (VRO) with osteosynthesis vs Vertical ramus osteotomy (VRO) without osteosynthesis Changes in condyle position: fossa-condyle relations for anterior (1 year post-operative) · Adults (16 years of age or older) with an Angle Class III malocclusion (prominent lower front teeth); people with… · 1 year post-surgery Vertical ramus osteotomy (VRO) with osteosynthesis showed no clear difference in changes in condyle position: fossa-condyle relations for anterior (1… compared with vertical ramus osteotomy (VRO) without osteosynthesis; GRADE not reported. Treatments for adults with prominent lower front teeth (2012) · Cochrane All outcomes | MD 0.00 [-0.38, 0.38] | 1 study · 53 participants | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Treatments for adults with prominent lower front teeth 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes | 2012-03 | Not listed | Not assessed |
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.