ReviewJPRAS open2026
Mandibular angle osteotomy in Asian patients: A narrative review on techniques, emerging technologies, and personalized surgical strategies.
Review in JPRAS open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Mandibular angle osteotomy (MAO) is widely performed in East Asian patients seeking lower-face contouring. Although numerous osteotomy designs and adjunctive technologies have been described, practical guidance for selecting an appropriate technique according to mandibular morphology, surgical endpoints, and surgeon experience remains limited. Methods: A narrative review was conducted using a systematic literature search of PubMed and Embase up to December 30, 2025. Studies related to MAO techniques, anatomical classification, aesthetic assessment, adjunctive procedures, emerging technologies, complications, and long-term remodeling were reviewed. Results: MAO techniques differ mainly in the starting point, endpoint, and trajectory of the osteotomy line. Long curved osteotomy remains a commonly used approach for prominent mandibular angles, whereas ABC osteotomy, U-shaped osteotomy, V-line osteotomy, mandibular outer cortex reduction, mandibular body osteotomy, genioplasty, and partial masseter muscle resection may be selected according to specific skeletal and soft-tissue features. Surgical endpoints should include not only skeletal reduction but also frontal width, lateral contour, mandibular border smoothness, symmetry, soft-tissue support, neurosensory safety, patient satisfaction, and long-term remodeling. Digital planning, osteotomy templates, navigation, and endoscopic assistance may improve accuracy and safety, especially in anatomically complex cases. Conclusion: MAO should be planned as an individualized lower-face contouring procedure rather than a uniform reduction technique. A morphology-based decision-making framework may help clarify indications, optimize surgical endpoints, reduce complications, and improve long-term aesthetic outcomes. Future studies should emphasize standardized outcome measures, patient-reported outcomes, and long-term three-dimensional assessment. Level of evidence: V.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.