Related Experiment Video
Updated: Feb 28, 2026
Author Spotlight: Development of a Novel Finite Element Analysis Model for Improved Orthognathic Surgical Techniques
Published on: October 20, 2023
Value in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery: A Systematic Review of Economic Analyses
Benjamin P Geisler1, Yisi D Ji2, Zachary S Peacock3
1Instructor, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA.
Purpose:
The purpose of this study is to describe the state of economic analyses in the field of oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMS).
Materials And Methods:
A systematic search of published literature up to 2016 was performed. The inclusion criteria were as follows: English-language articles on economic analyses pertaining to OMS including anesthesia and pain management; dentoalveolar surgery; orthognathic, cleft, and/or obstructive sleep apnea treatment; pathology; reconstruction; temporomandibular disorders; trauma; and other. The exclusion criteria were as follows: opinion or perspective articles, studies unrelated to OMS, nonhuman research, and implant-related studies. Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs), cost-utility analyses, and cost-minimization analyses (CMAs) were evaluated with the original Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist or a modified CHEERS checklist.
Results:
The search yielded 798 articles, 77 of which met the inclusion criteria (published from 1980 to 2016, 48 from the United States). There were an increasing number of studies over time (P for trend < .01). There were 7 economic studies on anesthesia and pain management (9.1%); 16 studies on dentoalveolar surgery (20.7%); 15 studies on orthognathic, cleft, and/or obstructive sleep apnea treatment (19.4%); 1 study on pathology (1.3%); 6 studies on reconstruction (7.8%); no studies on temporomandibular joint disorders and/or facial pain (0%); 20 studies on trauma (25.9%); and 12 studies categorized as other (15.5%). CEAs made up 11.7% of studies, and CMAs comprised 58.4%. Of the 9 CEAs, 55.6% were published in 2010 or later. Of the 45 CMAs, 88.6% were published in 2000 or later and 61.4% in 2010 or later. CEAs met 56.0% (range, 29.2 to 87.5%) of the CHEERS criteria, whereas CMA studies met 45.1% (range, 23.9 to 76.1%) of the modified CHEERS criteria. Only 1 study succeeded in estimating costs and health outcomes (value) of an OMS procedure.
Conclusions:
There is an increasing trend in the number of economic studies in the field of OMS. More high-quality economic evaluations are needed to demonstrate the value of OMS procedures. To determine value, future studies should compare both costs and health-related outcomes.
