Abstract
Background
Orthognathic Surgery (OGS) is a surgery for patients with dento-facial deformity but not all patients are satisfied with its outcome. The purpose of this study is to find out the short-term and long-term psychological impact and quality-of-life of OGS.
Methods
77 participants receiving OGS and 32 age and gender-matched controls were enrolled. The data of questionnaires were collected before OGS, one month and 9 months after OGS, including short form of the Derriford-Appearance-Scale (DAS-24), Big-Five-Inventory (BFI), Hospital-Anxiety-and-Depression-Scale (HADS), Pittsburgh-sleep-quality-index (PSQI), and 36-Item Short-Form-Health-Survey (SF-36). Variables were presented as mean ± standard deviation or frequency. Paired t-test, ANOVA and MANOVA were used to evaluate the pre-and post-surgery data.
Results
Short-term and long-term satisfaction of OGS was high. Before OGS, BFI showed the extraversion had significant difference between the male and female OGS subgroups. Several domains of DAS-24 were significantly different between the OGS and the control groups. Both groups had no significant difference in PSQI, HADS and SF-36, except sleep-efficiency. After OGS, many domains of DAS-24 were significantly improved and the improvement persisted to 9 months later. Sleep-latency, physical-function, role-limitations-due-to-physical-health and social-functioning exacerbated after OGS. Sleep-latency, physical-function, and social-functioning were improved 9 months after OGS, but sleep-efficiency and role-limitations-due-to-physical-health were still significantly worse than controls.
Conclusion
People received OGS for unfavorable appearance and the surgery could decrease their distress of appearance and impact to their daily living. Through long-term assessment, we should pay attention to sleep problems and role-limitations-due-to-physical-health after OGS.
Keywords: Orthognathic surgery, Psychological impact, Quality of life, Long-term follow-up
At a glance commentary
Scientific background on the subject
Patients with dentofacial deformity usually suffer from the negative impact of the deformity. After orthognathic surgery, they can have a more pleasing appearance and improved quality of life. Although evidences suggest positive change, the long-term impact of the surgery can be ambiguous.
What this study adds to the field
After surgery, our patients can have decreased negative impact from their appearance and improved sleep latency, physical and social function at the 9-month follow-up. However, sleep efficiency and role limitation due to physical health were worse than controls. Post-surgery evaluation of sleep and role limitations due to physical health is warranted.
Most patients with dentofacial deformity are usually less confident and suffer from the negative impact of the deformity. Not only their physical health such as oral function but also social function and other psychosocial condition can be affected. Low self-esteem and poorer oral health-related quality of life were reported [1], as well as emotion problems including depression and anxiety. Several studies have shown those with dentofacial deformity report more distress and insecurity compared to the control group, regarding their facial appearance [[2], [3], [4]]. Patients tend to exhibit more psychological stress in social situations than those with other jaw deformities [3]. Thus, most people would try to find a way to fix their problem. Among the reasons to receive orthognathic surgery, the aesthetic desire is frequently and mostly reported, and there are other reasons such as functional improvement [[5], [6], [7], [8], [9]].
Dentofacial deformity includes Class II and III malocclusion, poor dental and jaw relation. It can be noted since very young age and influence development in different life stages. Because current medicine pursues both physical and mental health of human beings, more and more people receive Orthognathic surgery (OGS). OGS is a functional and aesthetic treatment with increasing patient population. Orthognathic surgery (OGS) is a functional and aesthetic treatment. After receiving OGS, patients can have improved bite, better sleep quality for those with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), and a more pleasing appearance and subsequently better confidence. Moreover, the benefits of OGS with regard to quality of life [10] have been reviewed and the improvement in quality of life after surgery is confirmed [1,11]. Other positive effects of OGS on psychosocial status have also been well reported [3,12,13].
However, some patients can be unsatisfied with the outcome of OGS, and some studies showed that patients who had increased distress before OGS could also have more distress postoperatively [3,13]. Besides, although most previous studies showed positive and successful psychosocial outcomes after OGS surgery [11,12,[14], [15], [16], [17], [18]], some authors suggested that the results should be interpreted with caution since there was wide variation in study designs, inconsistent measurement methods of the psychosocial outcome, and reporting biases [10,18,19]. There were few prospective long-term follow-up studies and thus it can be difficult to quantify the extent and duration of the psychosocial influences of OGS. Other studies also mentioned that not only the benefit, but also other unfavorable outcomes and the psychological difficulties after OGS should be further investigated [20,21]. Therefore, although most evidences suggest improvement, the impact of OGS on different patient populations can be ambiguous, and it necessitates further investigation of the both short-term and long-term psychological changes in different psychosocial aspects.
Our craniofacial center is one of the world's best craniofacial centers, receiving at least 600 patients for OGS per year. We pursue the surgical success and also emphasize the importance of physical and mental health. In our experience, some people have disproportionate dissatisfaction with the surgical results, and it brings distress to both the patient and the medical team. Subsequent clinic visits and distressing phone calls can be exhausting and demoralizing, and some patients insist on re-operation, which consumes unnecessary time and treatment costs. Therefore, we developed a comprehensive psychological screening and evaluation assessment for screening and monitoring OGS patients before and after surgery.
By using our psychological assessment, we designed a long-term prospective study to explore possible psychological issues before and after OGS and analyzed the short-term and long-term psychological impact and quality of life in patients receiving OGS.
Materials and methods
Patients who were scheduled for OGS due to class II or III malocclusion or an asymmetrical face were recruited prospectively. Patients with craniofacial syndrome, cleft lip and palate, or facial deformities secondary to trauma and tumor resections were excluded. We also enrolled age and gender matched healthy controls without dentofacial deformity as the control group, and those with major physical disease (such as stroke, epilepsy, heart failure, liver cirrhosis, etc.) and psychiatric disorder (such as bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and mental retardation, etc.) were excluded. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Chang Gung Hospital, Taiwan (201600881B0).
Procedure
(a) Participants were diagnosed as having class II or III malocclusion or an asymmetrical face and scheduled for OGS at the Craniofacial Center of Chang Gung Memorial Hospital. Investigators explained the purpose and process of the study to patients and their families and invited them to join as participants. All participants signed an informed consent.
(b) After they signed the informed consent, they filled questionnaires before they received OGS (the preoperative phase).
(c) After OGS, we followed our participants and they completed the same questionnaires 1 month and 9 months after the surgery, evaluating the short-term and long term impact of OGS and the change of quality of life.
The surgical technique of OGS
Orthognathic surgery (OGS) is a safe and essential procedure to functionally correct malocclusion and esthetically improve facial profile [22,23]. The indication of OGS is for those patients with craniofacial anomaly, acquired dentofacial deformity, and facial asymmetry [24]. OGS mainly consists of two key surgical techniques including Le Fort I osteotomy and bilateral sagittal splitting osteotomy. LFI is used to dysjunction the connection of maxilla to pterygoid plate and zygoma to free the upper jaw. BSSO can separate the proximal and distal segments of mandible to free the lower jaw. Then, based on the guided stent, a new maxillomandibular complex could be repositioned for a better facial profile according to intra-operative esthetic checkpoints [25]. In addition, following the two-jaw surgery, genioplasty is usually performed to optimize the facial harmony at last.
Psychological screening and evaluation assessment
At present, there is no structured tool available to evaluate the psychological status and mental health of patients receiving OGS. Thus, we developed a comprehensive psychological screening and evaluation assessment, exploring 6 domains: (1) Demographic data, (2) Personality, (3) Distress and dysfunction to problems of appearance, (4) Sleep, (5) Emotion, and (6) Quality of life. We also assessed the Satisfaction of the surgery details were shown as follows:
-
(1)
Demographic data: we devised our own questions with the guidance from literature to collect data including gender, age, physical/psychological diseases and family support. Family and social support could correlate to physiological behavior and health [26,27].
-
(2)
Personality: Big Five Inventory (BFI) has 33 questions assessing 5 different personality components. These components include extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness. Higher scores of a particular component mean more tendency of the specific personality trait [28].
-
(3)
Distress and dysfunction to problems of appearance: we used Derriford Appearance Score (DAS-24) to measure distress and dysfunction to problems of appearance. It could evaluate the distress of patients with different appearance-altering conditions, e.g. burns, cleft lip and palate, etc. [29,30].
-
(4)
Sleep: Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) Scale was used and its 9 questions can assess eight sleep components, including subjective sleep quality, sleep latency, sleep duration, habitual sleep efficiency, sleep disturbances, use of sleeping medication, daytime dysfunction and global PSQI score [31]. Higher scores mean worse sleep quality.
-
(5)
Emotion: The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) with 14 major questions was used to evaluate depression and anxiety. The internal consistency of the Chinese-Cantonese HADS has been published, with Cronbach's alpha 0.86 for the full scale, 0.82 for the depression subscale and 0.77 for the anxiety subscale [32]. Higher scores represent more depression or anxiety.
-
(6)
Quality of life: 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) is a widely used tool for quality of life, and its 11 questions assess 8 components. The components assessed by SF-36 include physical functioning, role limitations due to physical health, role limitations due to emotional problems, energy/fatigue, emotional well-being, social functioning, pain, and general health. Higher scores mean better physical or mental functions [33].
-
(7)
Satisfaction: a visual analogy scale from 1 to 10 score was designed and used in the study. The higher scores mean more satisfaction. It was scored 1 month and 9 months after OGS.
Statistics
All data were analyzed with SPSS, version-20 (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL). Variables were presented as either mean ± standard deviation or frequency. Paired t-test and ANOVA to evaluate the pre-and post-surgery data. Independent t-tests and analysis of variance were used to compare groups according to visibly different/not different, and diagnostic (causal) category within the visibly different group.
To further analyze the changes of DAS-24 in different time points, we grouped the items of DAS-24 into three domains. The first domain is “Subjective distress to appearance,” including Distress at reflection, Irritable at home, Feel hurt, Self-consciousness of appearance, and Feel irritable. The second is “Distress of others' views to the appearance,” including Distressed at beach, Adopt concealing gestures, Avoid communal changing, Distressed in supermarkets/department, Avoid undressing with partner, Distressed playing sport/games, Distressed at social events, and Distressed at others remarks about appearance. The third domain is “Impact to daily living,” including Self consciousness affects work, Misjudged due to appearance, Distressed by clothing limitation, Feel normal, Affects sex life and Avoid pubs/restaurants. We used MANOVA to evaluate the 3 domains of DAS-24 in different time points.
A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered significant.
Results
Total 77 participants (male = 32.5%, mean age = 22.36 ± 7.97 years) were recruited in the OGS group, and the control group consisted of 32 age and gender matched healthy controls (male = 40.6%, mean age = 21.78 ± 6.69 years). Table 1a showed there was no significant difference in demographic data between the OGS group and the control group, except for the physical illness (p = 0.026) and education of mother (p = 0.021). We divided the OGS group and the control group into 4 subgroups by gender and all variables of collected demographic data had no significant difference between the 4 subgroups. Short-term and long-term satisfaction after OGS was high, one month after OGS (8.54 ± 1.79) and 9 months after OGS (8.70 ± 1.25). Table 1b showed the results of BFI before OGS. There was no significant difference between the OGS and control group. The only difference between the 4 subgroups was in the Extraversion (p = 0.044). The male OGS subgroup was more extroverted (mean ± SD = 19.50 ± 4.46) and the female OGS subgroup was more introverted (mean ± SD = 16.53 ± 4.13).
Table 1a.
Demographic data of all participants.
| OGS group |
Control group |
P1 | P2 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Male (n = 25) | Female (n = 52) | Total (n = 77) | Male (n = 13) | Female (n = 19) | Total (n = 32) | ||||
| Gender (%) | 32.5% | 67.5% | 40.6% | 59.4% | 0.420 | ||||
| Age (Mean ± SD) years | 23.04 ± 9.53 | 22.04 ± 7.18 | 22.36 ± 7.97 | 22.69 ± 2.87 | 21.16 ± 8.39 | 21.78 ± 6.69 | 0.866 | 0.717 | |
| Education of participants (%) | Below university | (12.0%) | (21.2%) | (18.2%) | (7.7%) | (15.8%) | (12.5%) | 0.361 | 0.282 |
| University or above | (88.0%) | (78.8%) | (81.8%) | (92.3%) | (84.2%) | (87.5%) | |||
| Education of father (%) | Below university | (40.0%) | (61.5%) | (54.5%) | (15.4%) | (42.1%) | (31.3%) | 0.059 | 0.289 |
| University or above | (60%) | (38.5%) | (45.5%) | (84.6%) | (57.9%) | (68.7%) | |||
| Education of mother (%) | Below university | (56.0%) | (61.5%) | (59.7%) | (30.8%) | (42.1%) | (37.5%) | 0.125 | 0.021∗ |
| University or above | (44.0%) | (38.5%) | (40.3%) | (69.2%) | (57.9%) | (62.5%) | |||
| Accompanied by relatives to the clinic (%) | Yes | 14 (56.0%) | 32 (61.5%) | 46 (59.7%) | 0.162 | ||||
| No | 11 (44.0%) | 20 (38.5%) | 31 (40.3%) | ||||||
| Does the family agree? (%) | Yes | 22 (88.0%) | 49 (94.2%) | 64 (92.2%) | 0.382 | ||||
| No | 3 (12.0%) | 3 (5.8%) | 6 (7.8%) | ||||||
| Physical diseases | Yes | 4 (16.0%) | 9(17.3%) | 13 (16.9%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0.173 | 0.026∗ |
| No | 21 (84.0%) | 43 (82.7%) | 64 (83.1%) | 13 (100.0%) | 19 (100.0%) | 32 (100.0%) | |||
| Psychological diseases | Yes | 1 (4.3%) | 7 (14.3%) | 8 (11.1%) | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (5.3%) | 1 (4.0%) | 0.359 | 0.291 |
| No | 22 (95.7%) | 42 (85.7%) | 64 (88.9%) | 13 (100.0%) | 18 (94.7%) | 31 (96.0%) | |||
| Whether or not to take sleeping pills | Yes | 1 (4.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (1.4%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0.373 | 1.000 |
| No | 24 (96.0%) | 52 (100%) | 76(98.7%) | 9 (100.0%) | 16 (100.0%) | 25 (100.0%) | |||
P1 values were calculated by Chi-square test or ANOVA test of 4 subgroups; ∗p < 0.05.
P2 values were calculated by Chi-square test or t-test of 2 groups (the OGS and control groups); ∗p < 0.05.
Abbreviations: OGS: orthognathic surgery; SD standard deviation.
“Physical diseases” include major physical diseases such as heart disease, diabetes mellitus, metabolic or endocrine diseases, cancer, orthopedic or urologic diseases, brain injury, stroke, epilepsy, etc.
“Psychological diseases” include major psychiatric disease such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, major depression, obsessive compulsive disorder, intellectual disability, substance use disorder, personality disorder, etc.
Table 1b.
The data of BFI of the OGS and control groups.
| OGS |
Control group |
P1 | P2 | Post hoc | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Male (n = 23) (mean ± SD) |
Female (n = 48) (mean ± SD) | Total (n = 71) (mean ± SD) | Male (n = 13) (mean ± SD) | Female (n = 20) (mean ± SD) | Total (n = 32) (mean ± SD) | ||||
| Extraversion | 19.50 ± 4.46∗ | 16.53 ± 4.13∗ | 17.45 ± 4.43 | 18.77 ± 5.17 | 18.65 ± 4.87 | 18.71 ± 5.07 | 0.044∗ | 0.209 | OGS: M > F (p = 0.008) |
| Agreeableness | 23.09 ± 3.62 | 22.94 ± 3.42 | 22.99 ± 3.46 | 22.54 ± 2.47 | 23.60 ± 3.52 | 23.16 ± 3.23 | 0.830 | 0.811 | |
| Conscientiousness | 25.13 ± 4.25 | 24.45 ± 4.45 | 24.67 ± 4.37 | 25.38 ± 4.13 | 26.05 ± 3.95 | 25.77 ± 3.90 | 0.551 | 0.230 | |
| Neuroticism | 18.27 ± 4.34 | 21.10 ± 6.20 | 20.23 ± 5.81 | 19.54 ± 4.63 | 22.55 ± 5.04 | 21.19 ± 5.10 | 0.065 | 0.424 | |
| Openness | 22.74 ± 4.21 | 20.14 ± 3.93 | 20.97 ± 4.17 | 21.46 ± 4.37 | 20.75 ± 4.39 | 20.84 ± 4.39 | 0.100 | 0.884 | OGS: M > F (p = 0.013) |
P1 values were calculated by Two-way ANOVA of 4 groups; ∗p < 0.05.
P2 values were calculated by t-test of 2 groups (OGS and control groups); ∗p < 0.05.
Post hoc: Scheffe test.
Abbreviations: BFI: the Big Fiver Inventory; F: female; M: male; OGS: orthognathic surgery; SD: standard deviation.
Table 2 showed that at baseline, several domains of DAS-24 had significantly differences between the OGS group and the control group, including distress at reflection (p = 0.000), irritable at home (p = 0.007), feel hurt (p = 0.000), self consciousness affects work (p = 0.013), self-conscious of appearance (p = 0.001), feel irritable (p = 0.000) and distressed at others remarks about appearance (p = 0.015). Many domains were improved significantly after OGS, including distress at reflection (p = 0.018), feel hurt (p = 0.011), self consciousness affects work (p = 0.040), self-conscious of appearance (p = 0.001), feel irritable (p = 0.002), adopt concealing gestures (p = 0.004), and feel normal (p = 0.018). Persistent improvement 9 month after OGS (Pc2 and Pc3 ≧ 0.05, indicating no significant difference between the control group and the OGS group 1 month and 9 month after OGS) was noted in distress at reflection, feel hurt, self consciousness affects work, self-conscious of appearance, feel irritable, adopt concealing gestures and feel normal. The improvement of adopt concealing gestures after OGS was even better than the control group, though non-significantly. The results of MANOVA showed that there were significant differences in the first domain (Wilks' Lambda = 3.651, p < 0.001) and the third domain (Wilks' Lambda = 3.075, p = 0.001), but not the second domain.
Table 2.
Comparison of DAS-24 before OGS and after OGS with the control group.
| Control group (N = 32) (M ± SD) |
OGS group |
P1 | P2 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before OGS (N = 77) (M ± SD) |
1 month after OGS (N = 77) (M ± SD) |
9 months after OGS (N = 28) (M ± SD) |
||||
| Distress at reflection | 1.90 ± 0.65 | 2.58 ± 0.91 | 2.03 ± 0.73 | 2.00 ± 0.94 | 0.018∗ | Pc1: 0.000∗; Pc2: 0.469; Pc3: 0.633 |
| Irritable at home | 1.00 ± 0.81 | 1.56 ± 0.99 | 1.30 ± 0.88 | 1.34 ± 0.84 | 0.247 | Pc1: 0.007∗; Pc2: 0.156; Pc3: 0.098 |
| Feel hurt | 1.61 ± 0.67 | 2.46 ± 1.01 | 1.95 ± 0.85 | 1.91 ± 0.92 | 0.011∗ | Pc1: 0.000∗; Pc2: 0.081; Pc3: 0.137 |
| Self consciousness affects work | 1.06 ± 0.68 | 1.47 ± 0.87 | 1.14 ± 0.75 | 1.09 ± 0.78 | 0.040∗ | Pc1: 0.013∗; Pc2: 0.688; Pc3: 0.907 |
| Distressed at beach | 1.10 ± 0.94 | 0.96 ± 0.91 | 0.73 ± 0.80 | 0.80 ± 0.96 | 0.846 | Pc1: 0.485; Pc2: 0.088; Pc3: 0.212 |
| Misjudged due to appearance | 1.29 ± 0.78 | 1.39 ± 0.90 | 1.16 ± 0.80 | 1.14 ± 0.84 | 0.380 | Pc1: 0.597; Pc2: 0.509; Pc3: 0.467 |
| Self-conscious of appearance | 1.71 ± 1.00 | 2.53 ± 1.10 | 2.06 ± 0.98 | 2.20 ± 1.08 | 0.001∗ | Pc1: 0.001∗; Pc2: 0.161; Pc3: 0.062 |
| Feel irritable | 1.68 ± 0.65 | 2.33 ± 1.02 | 1.81 ± 0.74 | 1.79 ± 0.88 | 0.002∗ | Pc1: 0.000∗; Pc2: 0.437; Pc3: 0.549 |
| Adopt concealing gestures | 1.81 ± 0.94 | 2.03 ± 0.85 | 1.49 ± 0.61 | 1.71 ± 0.68 | 0.004∗ | Pc1: 0.246; Pc2: 0.096; Pc3: 0.646 |
| Avoid communal changing | 1.84 ± 1.29 | 1.36 ± 1.24 | 1.22 ± 0.7 | 1.15 ± 1.06 | 0.717 | Pc1: 0.079; Pc2: 0.027∗; Pc3: 0.023∗ |
| Distressed in supermarkets/department | 1.23 ± 0.88 | 1.48 ± 0.97 | 1.05 ± 0.81 | 1.11 ± 0.87 | 0.141 | Pc1: 0.216; Pc2: 0.408; Pc3: 0.607 |
| Avoid undressing with partner | 0.53 ± 0.51 | 0.68 ± 0.95 | 0.46 ± 0.65 | 0.34 ± 0.48 | 0.504 | Pc1: 0.331; Pc2: 0.612; Pc3: 0.126 |
| Distressed playing sport/games | 1.19 ± 0.83 | 1.31 ± 1.05 | 1.24 ± 0.95 | 1.14 ± 1.14 | 0.857 | Pc1: 0.552; Pc2: 0.822; Pc3: 0.836 |
| Distressed by clothing limitations | 2.26 ± 1.03 | 1.75 ± 1.37 | 1.73 ± 1.22 | 1.89 ± 1.43 | 0.497 | Pc1: 0.051; Pc2: 0.061; Pc3: 0.226 |
| Distressed at social events | 1.97 ± 1.08 | 1.91 ± 1.03 | 1.59 ± 0.86 | 1.57 ± 0.95 | 0.140 | Pc1: 0.813; Pc2: 0.118; Pc3: 0.117 |
| Feel normal | 2.26 ± 1.09 | 2.41 ± 0.87 | 2.35 ± 0.82 | 2.26 ± 0.90 | 0.018∗ | Pc1: 0.447; Pc2: 0.697; Pc3: 0.979 |
| Affects sex life | 1.00 ± 0.89 | 0.89 ± 1.09 | 0.65 ± 0.86 | 0.46 ± 0.66 | 0.104 | Pc1: 0.587; Pc2: 0.104; Pc3: 0.006∗∗ |
| Distressed at others remarks about appearance | 1.94 ± 1.06 | 2.54 ± 1.16 | 1.84 ± 1.18 | 2.14 ± 0.88 | 0.115 | Pc1: 0.015∗; Pc2: 0.722; Pc3: 0.389 |
| Avoid pubs/restaurants | 1.10 ± 0.94 | 0.87 ± 0.69 | 0.81 ± 0.78 | 0.62 ± 0.60 | 0.165 | Pc1: 0.185; Pc2: 0.173; Pc3: 0.017∗ |
P1 values were calculated by repeat measure test of the OGS groups.
P2 values were calculated by Chi-square test or t-test of 2 groups (the OGS and control groups).
Pc1, p value of before OGS and the control group; Pc2, p value of 1 months after OGS and the control group; Pc3, p value of 9 months after OGS and the control group; ∗ = p value < 0.05.
Abbreviations: DAS: Derriford Appearance Scale; OGS: orthognathic surgery; M: mean; SD: standard deviation.
Table 3, Table 4 showed the results of PSQI, HADS and SF-36 before and after OGS. Before OGS, the OGS and control groups had no significant difference, except the habitual sleep efficiency of PSQI (Pc1 = 0.001). However, sleep latency (P1 = 0.001), physical function (P1 = 0.03), role limitations due to physical health (P1 = 0.008) and social functioning (P1 = 0.021) exacerbated after OGS. Sleep latency was improved 9 months after OGS (PC2 = 0.001, PC3 = 0.436), but role limitations due to physical health was still significantly worse than the control group (p = 0.033). Habitual sleep efficiency (p = 0.009) was not significantly changed after OGS, and daytime dysfunction 1 month after OGS was significantly better than the control group (p = 0.015).
Table 3.
Comparison of PSQI and HADS before OGS and after OGS with the control group.
| Control group (N = 32) (M ± SD) |
OGS group |
P1 | P2 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before OGS (N = 77) (M ± SD) |
1 month after OGS (N = 77) (M ± SD) |
9 months after OGS (N = 28) (M ± SD) |
||||
| PSQI-Subjective sleep quality | 1.03 ± 0.72 | 1.04 ± 0.70 | 1.00 ± 0.68 | 1.19 ± 0.46 | 0.846 | Pc1: 0.957; Pc2: 0.849; Pc3: 0.277 |
| PSQI-Sleep latency | 1.10 ± 0.70 | 1.21 ± 0.92 | 2.26 ± 0.92 | 1.25 ± 0.87 | 0.001∗ | Pc1: 0.495; Pc2: 0.001∗; Pc3: 0.436 |
| PSQI-Sleep duration | 0.74 ± 0.45 | 0.63 ± 0.76 | 0.66 ± 0.97 | 0.92 ± 0.84 | 0.886 | Pc1: 0.381; Pc2: 0.666; Pc3: 0.297 |
| PSQI-Habitual sleep efficiency | 0.17 ± 0.46 | 0.75 ± 1.27 | 0.53 ± 0.70 | 0.61 ± 0.84 | 0.368 | Pc1: 0.001∗; Pc2: 0.017∗; Pc3: 0.009∗ |
| PSQI-Sleep disturbances | 1.13 ± 0.50 | 0.91 ± 0.63 | 0.86 ± 0.60 | 1.11 ± 0.57 | 0.549 | Pc1: 0.098; Pc2: 0.052; Pc3: 0.893 |
| PSQI-Use of sleeping medication | 0.00 ± 0.00 | 0.13 ± 0.56 | 0.11 ± 0.53 | 0.25 ± 0.73 | 0.135 | Pc1: 0.060; Pc2: 0.211; Pc3: 0.051 |
| PSQI-Daytime dysfunction | 0.83 ± 0.39 | 0.61 ± 0.64 | 0.51 ± 0.56 | 0.74 ± 0.61 | 0.105 | Pc1: 0.056; Pc2: 0.015∗; Pc3: 0.528 |
| Global PSQI Score | 5.36 ± 1.90 | 5.35 ± 3.36 | 6.00 ± 3.01 | 6.03 ± 2.83 | 0.459 | Pc1: 0.981; Pc2: 0.326; Pc3: 0.282 |
| HADS-Depression | 4.32 ± 1.49 | 4.18 ± 3.12 | 3.47 ± 2.61 | 4.47 ± 3.13 | 0.368 | Pc1: 0.769; Pc2: 0.114; Pc3: 0.801 |
| HADS -Anxiety | 5.76 ± 2.35 | 5.89 ± 4.16 | 4.75 ± 4.03 | 5.22 ± 4.48 | 0.799 | Pc1: 0.859; Pc2: 0.277; Pc3: 0.557 |
P1 values were calculated by repeat measure test of OGS groups.
P2 values were calculated by Chi-square test or t-test of 2 groups (the OGS and control groups).
Pc1, p value of before OGS and the control group; Pc2, p value of 1 months after OGS and the control group; Pc3, p value of 9 months after OGS and the control group; ∗ = p value < 0.05.
Abbreviations: PSQI: Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index; HADS: Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale; OGS: orthognathic surgery; M: mean; SD: standard deviation.
Table 4.
Comparison of SF-36 before OGS and after OGS with the control group.
| Control group (N = 32) (M ± SD) |
OGS group |
P1 | P2 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before OGS (N = 77) (M ± SD) |
1 month after OGS (N = 77) (M ± SD) |
9 months after OGS (N = 28) (M ± SD) |
||||
| Physical function | 91.29 ± 15.91 | 94.64 ± 13.78 | 89.44 ± 12.46 | 93.75 ± 13.06 | 0.030∗ | Pc1: 0.287; Pc2: 0.597; Pc3: 0.490 |
| Role limitations due to physical health | 95.97 ± 11.36 | 90.71 ± 24.51 | 68.06 ± 39.46 | 82.64 ± 34.23 | 0.008∗ | Pc1: 0.144; Pc2: 0.001∗; Pc3: 0.033∗ |
| Role limitations due to emotional problems | 75.27 ± 35.45 | 84.76 ± 29.86 | 79.63 ± 34.07 | 82.41 ± 35.17 | 0.244 | Pc1: 0.168; Pc2: 0.610; Pc3: 0.412 |
| Energy/Fatigue | 61.83 ± 15.62 | 63.84 ± 19.96 | 63.19 ± 19.50 | 58.61 ± 19.95 | 0.250 | Pc1: 0.626; Pc2: 0.759; Pc3: 0.474 |
| Mental health | 67.87 ± 13.14 | 69.51 ± 19.40 | 68.89 ± 16.78 | 66.11 ± 18.92 | 0.408 | Pc1: 0.674; Pc2: 0.787; Pc3: 0.669 |
| Social functioning | 86.29 ± 16.88 | 82.97 ± 21.43 | 77.43 ± 22.12 | 80.90 ± 22.85 | 0.021∗ | Pc1: 0.448; Pc2: 0.073; Pc3: 0.273 |
| Body pain | 89.92 ± 15.24 | 92.07 ± 12.52 | 84.86 ± 17.19 | 87.22 ± 16.31 | 0.227 | Pc1: 0.461; Pc2: 0.210; Pc3: 0.489 |
| General health | 71.45 ± 16.08 | 70.29 ± 21.29 | 70.28 ± 20.28 | 68.19 ± 18.86 | 0.819 | Pc1: 0.786; Pc2: 0.796; Pc3: 0.454 |
P1 values were calculated by repeat measure test of OGS groups.
P2 values were calculated by Chi-square test or t-test of 2 groups (the OGS and control groups).
Pc1, p value of before OGS and the control group; Pc2, p value of 1 months after OGS and the control group; Pc3, p value of 9 months after OGS and the control group; ∗ = p value < 0.05.
Abbreviations: SF36: 36-Item Short Form Health Survey; OGS: orthognathic surgery; M: mean; SD: standard deviation.
Discussion
There are some limitations of this study. First, the sample size is not large. Second, we used questionnaires to evaluate the impact of OGS, and these were all subjective reports rather than objective measurements. No polysomnography (PSG) or actigraphy was used to evaluate sleep. However, to evaluate psychological aspects such as distress or mood, subjective measurements are still the best methods so far. Third, the results of PSQI and HADS of the OGS group were still within normal range, meaning the sleep and mental conditions of the patients were not too different from the controls. These questionnaires possibly are not sensitive enough to detect the differences between the 2 groups and the changes after OGS. Investigation of patients with psychiatric or sleep disorders can help to clarify the impact of OGS in different patient populations. Fourth, our study is not a randomized trial, but we included a healthy control group to increase the trustworthiness. Fifth, because this is a long-term clinical study, the drop-out rate is high. We followed drop-out subjects through phone calls, but most of them didn't want to keep participating the study since their problem is fixed, and no further treatment or medication is needed. Last, we didn't analyze the differences between patients with Class II and III deformity and the correlation with sleep disorders such as OSA in this paper, which will be further analyzed in the future.
The satisfaction of our OGS patients was high, consistent with most previous studies [11,12,[14], [15], [16], [17], [18]]. Besides the satisfaction, in this study, we used several psychometric assessments and statistic methods to evaluate and analyze the short-term and long-term psychological impacts of OGS. At baseline, several domains of DAS-24 had significantly differences between the OGS group and the control group, and many were improved significantly after OGS. Persistent improvements 9 month after OGS were also noted. The results of the three domains of DAS-24 by MANOVA also revealed that the first and the third domains of DAS-24 were significantly improved, indicating self-reported improvement in subjective distress of appearance and decreased impact to daily living. Similar to our results, a systematic review article using MEDLINE and Web of Science showed that orthognathic patients experience benefits as a result of OGS. They had more self-confidence, better body and facial image, and social adjustment [10,11,19,20]. The improvement of adopt concealing gestures was even better than the control group in our study and could represent substantial improvement physically and mentally after OGS.
Another finding is the differences of personality of the OGS group. Males in the OGS group were more extroverted while females in the OGS groups were more introverted. Most previous studies focus on the positive impact of OGS on personality trait, but a previous research reported high percentage of personality disorder in their participants, 14 of 33 were suggestive to have borderline, compulsive, antisocial, or passive-aggressive disorders, although the study didn't aim at evaluating the prevalence [34]. Dentofacial deformities can impact patients' growth and development and their personality in adulthood can influence the outcome of OGS and future adjustment. The personality of patients with dentofacial abnormalities is worthy investigating, as well as the gender differences.
The sleep efficiency of the OGS group was significantly worse than the control group. After OGS, sleep latency exacerbated and then was improved 9 months after OGS. Interestingly, daytime dysfunction 1 month after OGS was significantly better than the control group. Craniofacial deformity is a risk factor for OSA, which has huge impact on sleep quality. Besides, postoperative pain can be the acute trigger for prolonged sleep latency. Sleep and pain could be highly correlated with postoperative satisfaction and surgical success [35] and appropriate pain and sleep management is suggested in OGS patients. The utility of OGS in the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea worths further exploring in future research. Objective measurements such as PSG and actigraphy can help us understand the actual impact of OGS on sleep and treat sleep comorbidities such as OSA.
Different from previous studies, our results of SF-36 indicated that after OGS, the quality of life of the OGS group didn't have improvement in either short-term or long-term follow-up. Physical function, role limitations due to physical health and social functioning even exacerbated after OGS. Only role limitations due to physical health was still significantly worse than the control group 9 months after the surgery. The major concern of patients receiving OGS is still the physical appearance, and relates more with the psychological domains of SF-36. Our findings of worsening of role limitations due to physical health can relate to longer recovery period from the surgery in some patients. Although there were consistent findings in the improvement of the distress of appearance after OGS, other psychosocial outcome such as mood and quality of life can be different. A previous longitudinal study also revealed different outcome trajectory classes, and 15% of the patients exhibited a chronic distress pattern [36]. Our findings pointed out the importance of psychosocial evaluation and intervention before and after OGS.
Conclusion
Our study replicated findings of previous studies, showing that patients could have less distress of appearance after OGS and less impact to their daily living. However, not all psychological aspects and quality of life were improved and even some deterioration in sleep and role-limitations-due-to-physical-health was noted after OGS. Proper psychosocial evaluation and intervention before and after OGS can be important in order to promote surgical success and outcome. Further investigation of risk factors for the unfavorable outcome is warranted.
Conflicts of interest
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Acknowledgements
This study was supported by the Chang Gung Memorial Hospital Research Grants (CMRPG3J0131) to Yu-Shu Huang. We want to thank Ms. I Tang to help the statistical analysis.
Footnotes
Peer review under responsibility of Chang Gung University.
Contributor Information
Yu-Shu Huang, Email: yushuhuang1212@gmail.com.
Yu-Ray Chen, Email: uraychen@cgmh.org.tw.
References
- 1.Soh C.L., Narayanan V. Quality of life assessment in patients with dentofacial deformity undergoing orthognathic surgery--a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2013;42:974–980. doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2013.03.023. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Hatch J.P., Rugh J.D., Clark G.M., Keeling S.D., Tiner B.D., Bays R.A. Health-related quality of life following orthognathic surgery. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg. 1998;13:67–77. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Takatsuji H., Kobayashi T., Kojima T., Hasebe D., Izumi N., Saito I., et al. Effects of orthognathic surgery on psychological status of patients with jaw deformities. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015;44:1125–1130. doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2015.02.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Vulink N.C., Rosenberg A., Plooij J.M., Koole R., Bergé S.J., Denys D. Body dysmorphic disorder screening in maxillofacial outpatients presenting for orthognathic surgery. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2008;37:985–991. doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2008.06.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Finlay P.M., Atkinson J.M., Moos K.F. Orthognathic surgery: patient expectations; psychological profile and satisfaction with outcome. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1995;33:9–14. doi: 10.1016/0266-4356(95)90078-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Kiyak H.A., Hohl T., Sherrick P., West R.A., McNeill R.W., Bucher F. Sex differences in motives for and outcomes of orthognathic surgery. J Oral Surg. 1981;39:757–764. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Laufer D., Glick D., Gutman D., Sharon A. Patient motivation and response to surgical correction of prognathism. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1976;41:309–313. doi: 10.1016/0030-4220(76)90143-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.McKiernan E.X., McKiernan F., Jones M.L. Psychological profiles and motives of adults seeking orthodontic treatment. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg. 1992;7:187–198. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Stirling J., Latchford G., Morris D.O., Kindelan J., Spencer R.J., Bekker H.L. Elective orthognathic treatment decision making: a survey of patient reasons and experiences. J Orthod. 2007;34:113–127. doi: 10.1179/146531207225022023. discussion 111. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Silva I., Cardemil C., Kashani H., Bazargani F., Tarnow P., Rasmusson L., et al. Quality of life in patients undergoing orthognathic surgery - a two-centered Swedish study. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2016;44:973–978. doi: 10.1016/j.jcms.2016.04.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Hunt O.T., Johnston C.D., Hepper P.G., Burden D.J. The psychosocial impact of orthognathic surgery: a systematic review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2001;120:490–497. doi: 10.1067/mod.2001.118402. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Broers D.L.M., van der Heijden G.J.M.G., Rozema F.R., de Jongh A. Do patients benefit from orthognathic surgery? A systematic review on the effects of elective orthognathic surgery on psychosocial functioning and patient satisfaction. Eur J Oral Sci. 2017;125:411–418. doi: 10.1111/eos.12371. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Lee L.W., Chen S.H., Yu C.C., Lo L.J., Lee S.R., Chen Y.R. Stigma, body image, and quality of life in women seeking orthognathic surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007;120:225–231. doi: 10.1097/01.prs.0000264100.57630.c7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Motegi E., Hatch J.P., Rugh J.D., Yamaguchi H. Health-related quality of life and psychosocial function 5 years after orthognathic surgery. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003;124:138–143. doi: 10.1016/s0889-5406(03)00391-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Murphy C., Kearns G., Sleeman D., Cronin M., Allen P.F. The clinical relevance of orthognathic surgery on quality of life. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011;40:926–930. doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2011.04.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Brunault P., Battini J., Potard C., Jonas C., Zagala-Bouquillon B., Chabut A., et al. Orthognathic surgery improves quality of life and depression, but not anxiety, and patients with higher preoperative depression scores improve less. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016;45:26–34. doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2015.07.020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Huang C.S., Hsu S.S., Chen Y.R. Systematic review of the surgery-first approach in orthognathic surgery. Biomed J. 2014;37:184–190. doi: 10.4103/2319-4170.126863. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Peiró-Guijarro M.A., Guijarro-Martínez R., Hernández-Alfaro F. Surgery first in orthognathic surgery: a systematic review of the literature. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2016;149:448–462. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.09.022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Naran S., Steinbacher D.M., Taylor J.A. Current concepts in orthognathic surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018;141:925e–936e. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000004438. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Bouletreau P. [Unfavorable outcomes in orthognathic surgery] Orthod Fr. 2016;87:111–113. doi: 10.1051/orthodfr/2016003. French. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Liddle M.J., Baker S.R., Smith K.G., Thompson A.R. Psychosocial outcomes in orthognathic surgery: a review of the literature. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2015;52:458–470. doi: 10.1597/14-021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Chou P.Y., Denadai R., Yao C.F., Chen Y.A., Chang C.S., Lin C.C., et al. History and evolution of orthognathic surgery at Chang Gung Craniofacial Center: lessons learned from 35-year experience. Ann Plast Surg. 2020;84:S60–S68. doi: 10.1097/SAP.0000000000002179. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Chou P.Y., Denadai R., Chen C., Pai B.C., Hsu K.H., Chang C.T., et al. Comparison of orthognathic surgery outcomes between patients with and without underlying high-risk conditions: a multidisciplinary team-based approach and practical guidelines. J Clin Med. 2019;8:1760. doi: 10.3390/jcm8111760. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Chou P.Y., Denadai R., Chen S.H., Tseng H.J., Hsu C.K., Wang S.W., et al. Identifying three-dimensional facial fluctuating asymmetry in normal pediatric individuals: a panel assessment outcome study of clinicians and observers. J Clin Med. 2019;8:648. doi: 10.3390/jcm8050648. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Yu C.C., Bergeron L., Lin C.H., Chu Y.M., Chen Y.R. Single-splint technique in orthognathic surgery: intraoperative checkpoints to control facial symmetry. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;124:879–886. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181b03842. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Khechoyan D.Y. Orthognathic surgery: general considerations. Semin Plast Surg. 2013;27:133–136. doi: 10.1055/s-0033-1357109. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Cardoso-Moreno M.J., Tomás-Aragones L. The influence of perceived family support on post surgery recovery. Psychol Health Med. 2017;22:121–128. doi: 10.1080/13548506.2016.1153680. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.John O.P., Srivastava S. In: Pervin L.A., John O.P., editors. vol. 2. Guilford Press; New York: 1999. The Big-Five trait taxonomy: history, measurement, and theoretical perspectives; pp. 102–138. (Handbook of personality: theory and research). [Google Scholar]
- 29.Moss T.P., Lawson V., Liu C.Y. The Taiwanese Derriford Appearance Scale: the translation and validation of a scale to measure individual responses to living with problems of appearance. PsyCh J. 2015;4:138–145. doi: 10.1002/pchj.91. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Carr T., Moss T., Harris D. The DAS24: a short form of the Derriford Appearance Scale DAS59 to measure individual responses to living with problems of appearance. Br J Health Psychol. 2005;10:285–298. doi: 10.1348/135910705X27613. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Tsai P.S., Wang S.Y., Wang M.Y., Su C.T., Yang T.T., Huang C.J., et al. Psychometric evaluation of the Chinese version of the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (CPSQI) in primary insomnia and control subjects. Qual Life Res. 2005;14:1943–1952. doi: 10.1007/s11136-005-4346-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Watson R. A psychometric evaluation of the Chinese version of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale in patients with coronary heart disease. J Clin Nurs. 2009;18:3068. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2009.03043.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Brazier J.E., Harper R., Jones N.M., O'Cathain A., Thomas K.J., Usherwood T., et al. Validating the SF-36 health survey questionnaire: new outcome measure for primary care. BMJ. 1992;305:160–164. doi: 10.1136/bmj.305.6846.160. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Brucoli M., Zeppegno P., Benech R., Boffano P., Benech A. Psychodynamic features associated with orthognathic surgery: a comparison between conventional orthognathic treatment and “Surgery-First” approach. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2019;77:157–163. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2018.06.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Widar F. 2015. On factors influencing the clinical outcome in orthognathic surgery. https://gupea.ub.gu.se/handle/2077/38462/ [accessed 10 February 2019] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Suen K.S., Lai Y., Ho S.M.Y., Cheung L.K., Choi W.S. A longitudinal evaluation of psychosocial changes throughout orthognathic surgery. PLoS One. 2018;13 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0203883. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]