| | I | II | III | IV | Total | Grade |
|---|
Unimax mand | Bimax | Unimax mand | Bimax | Unimax | Bimax | Unimax mand | Bimax | Unimax* mand | Bimax** |
|---|
Total |
Sagittal | ++ | ++ | + | | | T1++/T2− | ++ | | ++ | ++ | |
Vertical | ++ | ++ | − | | | T1++/T2− | − | | ++ | ++ | |
Skeletal |
Sagittal | ++ | ++ | + | | | T1+/T2− | ++ | | ++ | ++/+ | |
Vertical | ++/− | ++ | − | | | T1++/T2− | +/− | | ++/− | ++ | Low |
Dental |
Sagittal | ++ | ++ | ++/+ | | | T1++/T2++ | ++ | | ++ | ++ | |
Vertical | ++ | ++ | − | | | T1++/T2++ | − | | ++/− | ++ | |
Soft tissue |
Sagittal | +/− | ++ | | | | | | | | ++ | |
Vertical | ++ | ++ | | | | T1+/T2− | | | | ++/+ | |
- ++ Highly stable
- + Stable
- − Problematic
- I—study of Ana de Lourdes Sá de Lir et al.: Long-term skeletal and profile stability after surgica-orthodontic treatment of Class II and Class III malocclusion
- II—study of P R H Venkategowda et al.: Stability of Vertical, Horizontal and Angular Parameters Following Superior Repositioning of Maxilla by Le Fort I Osteotomy: A cephalometric study
- III—study of J A Miguel et al.: Long-term stability of two-jaw surgery for treatment of mandibular deficiency and vertical maxillary excess
- IV—study of J Paunonen et al.: Long-term stability of mandibular advancement with bilateral sagittal split osteotomy
- *Evaluation in total only possible for study I group unimax and study IV because of the same intervention
- **Evaluation in total only possible for study I group bimax and study III because of the same intervention, evaluation for T1
- The table shows the distribution of stability frequencies for every study after categorizing stability according to Bailey et al. The most frequently occurring relapse grade (highly stable, stable, problematic) across all evaluated parameters within each category (skeletal, dental, soft tissue) in each dimension (sagittal, vertical) and in total in the sagittal and vertical dimension was considered as the relative relapse extent of the respective intervention
