Aim: To facilitate the orthognathic shared decision-making process by identifying and applying existing research evidence to establish the potential consequences of living with a severe malocclusion. Methods: A comprehensive narrative literature review was conducted to explore the potential complications of severe malocclusion. A systematic electronic literature search of four databases combined with supplementary hand searching identified 1024 articles of interest. A total of 799 articles were included in the narrative literature review, which was divided into 10 themes: Oral Health Related Quality Of Life; Temporomandibular Joint Dysfunction; Masticatory Limitation; Sleep Apnoea; Traumatic Dental Injury; Tooth Surface Loss; Change Over Time; Periodontal Injury; Restorative Difficulty; and Functional Shift and Dual Bite. A deductive approach was used to draw conclusions from the evidence available within each theme. Results: The narrative literature review established 27 conclusions, indicating that those living with a severe malocclusion may be predisposed to a range of potential consequences. With the exception of Oral Health Related Quality Of Life, which is poorer in adults with severe malocclusion than those with normal occlusions, and the risk of Traumatic Dental Injury, which increases when the overjet is >5 mm in the permanent and 3 mm in the primary dentition, the evidence supporting the remaining conclusions was found to be of low to moderate quality and at high risk of bias. Conclusion: This article summarises the findings of a comprehensive narrative literature review in which all of the relevant research evidence within a substantive investigative area is established and evaluated. Notwithstanding limitations regarding the quality of the available evidence; when combined with clinical expertise and an awareness of individual patient preferences, the conclusions presented may facilitate the orthognathic shared decision-making process and furthermore, may guide the development of the high-quality longitudinal research required to validate them.

Introduction: Patients’ decisions to undergo major surgery such as orthognathic treatment are not just about how the decision is made but what influences the decision. Objectives: The primary objective of the study was to identify the key processes involved in patients’ experience of decision making for orthognathic treatment. Methods: This study reports some of the findings of a larger grounded theory study. Data were collected through face-to-face interviews of patients who were seen for orthognathic treatment at a teaching hospital in the United Kingdom. Twenty-two participants were recruited (age range 18–66 y), of whom 12 (male = 2, female = 10) were 6 to 8 wk postsurgery, 6 (male = 2, female = 4) were in the decision-making stage, and 4 (male = 0, female = 4) were 1 to 2 y postsurgery. Additional data were also collected from online blogs and forums on jaw surgery. The data analysis stages of grounded theory methodology were undertaken, including open and selective coding. Results: The study identified the central role of dental care professionals (DCPs) in several underlying processes associated with decision making, including legitimating, mediating, scheduling, projecting, and supporting patients’ decisions. Six categories were related to key aspects of decision making. These were awareness about their underlying dentofacial problems and treatment options available, the information available about the treatment, the temporality of when surgery would be undertaken, the motivations and expectation of patients, social support, and fear of the surgery, hospitalization, and potentially disliking their new face. Conclusion: The decision-making process for orthognathic treatment is complex, multifactorial, and heavily influenced by the role of DCPs in patient care. Understanding the magnitude of this role will enable DCPs to more clearly participate in improving patients’ decision-making process. The findings of this study can inform future quantitative studies. Knowledge Transfer Statement: The results of this study can be used both for informing clinical practice around enabling decision making for orthognathic treatment and also for designing future research. The findings can better inform clinicians about the importance of their role in the patients’ decision-making process for orthognathic treatment and the means to improve the patient experience. It is suggested that further research could be conducted to measure some of the key constructs identified within our grounded theory and assess how these change during the treatment process.

Background: Orthognathic clinics across England are currently run in a multidisciplinary team (MDT) format. It is, however, likely that there is a large variation in the style of these clinics and care pathways for orthognathic patients across the country. This is a cross-sectional, online questionnaire with a primary aim to obtain information on the way orthognathic care is currently delivered throughout England. The secondary objectives were to determine the compliance to the minimum dataset for record collection. The questionnaire, disseminated to orthodontic consultants, detailed 27 items split into waiting lists for new patients, mechanics of the clinic, support for patients and record collection. Results: A total of 36 participants responded (one was excluded) to give a total of 35 questionnaire responses. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse the data. Of the participants, 34% followed up their patients as per the commissioning guidelines at 1, 2 and 5 years after treatment. Of the participants, 20% said patients’ mental health would be screened before adding them to a waiting list, with 26% of participants stating screening was not undertaken for all patients. Of the participants, 11% had available access to psychological support during the MDT meeting and 20% recorded the minimum dataset at the follow-up intervals. Conclusion: There are inconsistencies in the orthognathic MDT design across England. Acceptance criteria, support services available and records collected for patients showed substantial variation, highlighting the limited guidance offered by the commissioning guidelines and the potential need to revise the minimum dataset.