## 4 Discussion  
The general data and skeletal discrepancy between the OFA and SFA groups were compared, and showed no significant differences (Table 1). These findings were also related to a previous report, that the degree of skeletal discrepancy was the same in both groups [27]. The criteria for selecting between the SFA and the OFA were described by the orthodontic manner [10]. The presurgical orthodontic phase in the OFA took time, deteriorated occlusion and esthetics, caused discomfort or pain and affected patients' confidence [8; 15; 16; 17]. The time of the presurgical orthodontic phase in the OFA was 860.69 \(\pm\) 514.768 days in the current study. The SFA eliminated the presurgical orthodontic phase, decompensation started right after surgery, and promoted faster tooth movement rates by RAP [11], and previous studies showed significantly reduced treatment time [8; 10]. At 1 month after surgery, the facial esthetics domain was improved in both the OFA and the SFA groups. This revealed that the first and foremost concern of Thai patients undergoing orthognathic surgery was esthetics. This result was confirmed by studies in Taiwan and the United Kingdom (UK) [23; 28]. The results indicated that orthognathic surgery can significantly improve cosmetic outcomes, by immediately changing facial soft tissue [5]. In addition, the social aspects of the deformity domain were improved significantly only in the OFA group. The social aspects of deformity domain questions reflected the patients' thoughts about how other people regarded them and their appearance. The presurgical orthodontic decompensation phase in the OFA resulted in the patients' facial profiles deteriorating after such a long period [9; 22]. When the skeleton was corrected immediately after surgery, the change in facial profile and esthetics improved dramatically: as a result, OFA patients could have experience of massive changes in the social aspects of \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**A T1–T2**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**A T1–T3**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**A T1–T4**} \\  & **OFA** & **SFA** & **OFA** & **SFA** & **OFA** & **SFA** & **OFA** & **SFA** & \\  & **Mean** & **Mean** & **Mean** & **Mean** & **Mean** & **Mean** & **Mean** & **Mean Difference** & **Mean Difference** & **Mean Difference** \\  & \(\pm\)**S.D.** & \(\pm\)**S.D.** & & \(\pm\)**S.D.** & & \(\pm\)**S.D.** & \(\pm\)**S.D.** & & \(\pm\)**S.D.** & \(\pm\)**S.D.** & \(\pm\)**S.D.** & \(\pm\)**S.D.** \\ \hline Social & 3.4 \(\pm\) 8.645 & 3.80 \(\pm\) 7.332 & 0.976 & 5.80 \(\pm\) 8.393 & 6.73 \(\pm\) 7.821 & 0.859 & 7.23 \(\pm\) 8.982 & 8.83 \(\pm\) 8.284 & 0.604 \\ Esthetic & 4.20 \(\pm\) 4.294 & 4.80 \(\pm\) 4.715 & 0.504 & 7.033 \(\pm\) 4.7306 & 6.733 \(\pm\) 4.6899 & 0.657 & 7.60 \(\pm\) 4.760 & 8.97 \(\pm\) 3.080 & 0.229 \\ Function & 0.43 \(\pm\) 5.649 & \(-\)0.93 \(\pm\) 5.889 & 0.477 & 3.00 \(\pm\) 5.452 & 2.43 \(\pm\) 3.510 & 6.678 & 4.73 \(\pm\) 4.299 & 5.80 \(\pm\) 5.229 & 0.394 \\ Awareness & 0.20 \(\pm\) 3.336 & 0.60 \(\pm\) 3.793 & 0.656 & 1.57 \(\pm\) 3.936 & 2.27 \(\pm\) 4.168 & 0.528 & 2.53 \(\pm\) 3.857 & 3.10 \(\pm\) 3.772 & 0.381 \\ Total & 8.23 \(\pm\) 15.156 & 8.60 \(\pm\) 18.059 & 0.584 & 17.40 \(\pm\) 17.704 & 18.17 \(\pm\) 16.103 & 0.807 & 22.17 \(\pm\) 18.688 & 26.03 \(\pm\) 15.928 & 0.336 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: The mean differences at each time point, and comparisons between the OFA and SFA groups, using the Mann–Whitney U test. Figure 1: The change in domain scores at each time point. deformity within 1 month, while SFA patients required more time to adapt to socializing, from our clinical observation. At 3 months after surgery, awareness of facial deformities was an additional domain in the SFA group that improved significantly. This domain's questions reflect awareness and concern about teeth, and the appearance of oneself and others.