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.

Aims: This study aimed to evaluate and compare the quality, accuracy, and readability of orthodontic retention-related information provided by five AI-based chatbot platforms: ChatGPT-4, Copilot, Gemini, MediSearch, and OpenEvidence. Methods: A set of 25 commonly asked patient-oriented questions on orthodontic retention was submitted to each chatbot. Responses were evaluated using five key metrics: EQIP (Ensuring Quality Information for Patients), Reliability Score, Global Quality Score (GQS), SMOG Readability Index, and Similarity Index. Mean±standard deviation values were calculated. Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn’s post-hoc tests were used to assess statistical differences. Results: MediSearch and OpenEvidence outperformed others in EQIP and Reliability scores. ChatGPT-4 generated the most original content with the lowest Similarity Index. SMOG readability was significantly better for ChatGPT-4, while MediSearch and OpenEvidence produced more technically complex language. Statistically significant differences (p<0.05) were found between platforms in EQIP, SMOG, and Similarity Index metrics. Conclusion: Performance among AI chatbots varies significantly in delivering orthodontic retention guidance. While medical-specific tools offer superior accuracy and reliability, general-purpose models like ChatGPT-4 excel in readability and originality. The results highlight the importance of matching AI platform selection with patient communication goals.

Ortodonti alanındaki güncel yaklaşımları ve klinik deneyimleri bir araya getiren Kanıta Dayalı Ortodontik Uygulamalar, modern tedavi anlayışına farklı bir bakış sunmaktadır. Uzman akademisyen ve klinisyenlerin katkılarıyla hazırlanan eser, doğru malzeme ve tekniklerin etkin tedavilere nasıl yön verdiğini ortaya koyarak hem öğrenciler hem de uygulayıcı hekimler için değerli bir kaynak niteliği taşımaktadır. Vizetek Yayıncılıkın desteğiyle yayımlanan bu kitabın, ortodonti eğitimine ve klinik uygulamalara katkı sağlaması dileğiyle…

Aims: Genioplasty is a widely used surgical technique to correct chin deformities and improve facial harmony. Despite its clinical relevance, a systematic evaluation of influential studies and research trends in this field is lacking. This study aimed to identify and analyze the 100 most cited articles on genioplasty through bibliometric methods. Methods: A title-specific search using the keyword “genioplasty” was conducted in the Web of Science Core Collection on July 25, 2025, covering the years 1950 to 2025. A total of 403 articles were retrieved and ranked by total citation count. After screening titles and abstracts, the 100 most cited articles with a primary focus on genioplasty were selected by two independent reviewers. Extracted data included publication year, journal name, total citations, average citations per year, authorship, study design, and primary topic. Descriptive statistics were used for analysis. Results: Citation counts ranged from 13 to 86. Most articles were published after 2000, with a peak in the 2010s. The Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (n=20) and Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (n=13) were the most represented journals. The most common topics were surgical technique (n=45) and outcome evaluation (n=34). Retrospective (n=35) and prospective (n=25) cohort studies dominated, while randomized controlled trials were rare (n=3). Conclusion: This bibliometric analysis reveals the leading themes, study types, and journals in genioplasty research, offering valuable insight for future investigations in facial skeletal surgery.

AmaçOrtognatik cerrahide “cerrahi-önce” (SFA) yaklaşımının, klasik “ortodonti-önce” (OFA) protokolüne göre klinik sonuçlarını karşılaştırmak.Gereç ve YöntemlerWeb of Science’da 2009-2025 arası İngilizce özgün araştırmalar tarandı. SFA ve OFA’yı doğrudan kıyaslayan, klinik nihai sonlanım bildiren karşılaştırmalı kohortlar dâhil edildi; yalnızca splint/oklüzyon set-up metriklerine odaklanan ve özel fenotipli (genellenebilirliği sınırlı) seriler dışlandı. PRISMA 2020’ye göre akış: 43 kayıt tanımlandı; 33 tam-metin adayı ayrıldı; erişilebilen 11 rapor uygunluk açısından incelendi; 10 çalışma dâhil edildi. Nicel havuzlanma planlanmadı; heterojenlik nedeniyle anlatı sentez yapıldı.BulgularTedavi süresini raporlayan serilerde SFA toplam süreyi anlamlı kısalttı (örn. 21.1 ± 10.3 ay vs 34.4 ± 11.9 ay; P < 0.001). Maliyet-etkililik çalışması SFA’da ameliyat süresinin daha uzun olabildiğini, ancak hastanede kalış ve doğrudan maliyetlerin benzer kaldığını; zaman-etkinlik üstünlüğünün SFA lehine olduğunu gösterdi. Üç boyutlu analizler, kısa-orta vadede (≈6-12 ay) iskeletsel stabilite/relapsın iki yaklaşım arasında benzer olduğunu destekledi; izole maksiller ilerletmede 6. ay yatay relaps farkı klinik açıdan küçük ve anlamsızdı. Kondiler yer değiştirme ve yüzey remodeling paternleri (inferolateral deplasman, lateral rezorpsiyon–anteromedial appozisyon) yaklaşımlar arasında benzedi. TME tıklaması her iki grupta da azaldı; postoperatif ağrı açısından anlamlı fark yoktu ve en güçlü öngördürücü preoperatif semptomdu. Yaşam kalitesi (OQLQ) her iki grupta ameliyat sonrası belirgin iyileşti; OFA’da preoperatif dekompanzasyon dönemine bağlı geçici kötüleşme görüldü; SFA bu evreyi atladı.SonuçUygun endikasyon ve titiz planlamayla SFA, OFA’ya kıyasla benzer iskeletsel/TME güvenliğiyle daha kısa toplam tedavi süresi ve daha hızlı hasta-merkezli kazanımlar sunar. Çok merkezli, ileriye dönük ve standartlaştırılmış 3B ölçütler içeren çalışmalar kanıt kalitesini artıracaktır.