## 3 Results  
The demographic data for the OFA and the SFA patients were compared (Table 1). There were no significant differences in sex or age between the groups. The patients in this study consisted of skeletal II and III. ANB was used for comparison in the horizontal dimension, and SN-MP was used for comparison in the vertical dimension. The results showed no significant difference in cephalometric data, for both the horizontal and the vertical skeletal measurements, between the two groups at the time before surgery. The average OQLQ score before surgery (T1) was 53.50 \(\pm\) 15.96 points in the OFA group, and 51.90 \(\pm\) 15.27 points in the SFA group. The total average score was 52.7 points, which was 59.89% of the total 88 points. The OQLQ scores at each time point were compared (Tables 2 and 3): at 1 month after surgery, the facial esthetics and social aspects of the deformity domains improved significantly in the OFA group, whereas in the SFA group, only the facial esthetics domain improved significantly; at 3 months after surgery, the social aspects of deformity, facial esthetics, oral function and total score improved significantly in the OFA group, while in the SFA group, the social aspects of deformity, facial esthetics, awareness of facial deformities and total score improved significantly; at 6 months after surgery, all domains and total scores improved significantly. The mean differences in the total OQLQ score and domain scores at each time point were compared between the groups (Table 4). At each time point (1 month, 3 months and 6 months after surgery), there was no significant difference in the change in the OQLQ score between the OFA and SFA groups. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Domain** & **T1** & **T2** & **T3** & **T4** & **T1–T2** & **T1–T3** & **T1–T4** \\  & **Mean \(\pm\) S.D.** & **Mean \(\pm\) S.D.** & **Mean \(\pm\) S.D.** & **Mean \(\pm\) S.D.** & **Mean \(\pm\) S.D.** & **_p Value_ & **_p Value_ \\ \hline Social (0–32) & \(17.17\pm 7.634\) & \(11.87\pm 8.673\) & \(9.47\pm 6.653\) & \(8.03\pm 6.703\) & \(0.004\) * & \(0.000\) * & \(0.000\) * \\ Esthetic (0–20) & \(15.20\pm 3.800\) & \(10.10\pm 4.788\) & \(7.27\pm 4.362\) & \(6.70\pm 4.228\) & \(0.000\) * & \(0.000\) * \\ Function (0–20) & \(12.17\pm 4.145\) & \(11.90\pm 4.759\) & \(9.33\pm 5.020\) & \(7.60\pm 4.484\) & \(1.000\) & \(0.031\) * & \(0.000\) * \\ Awareness (0–16) & \(8.97\pm 3.577\) & \(8.67\pm 3.809\) & \(7.30\pm 3.725\) & \(6.33\pm 3.863\) & \(1.000\) & \(0.594\) & \(0.036\) * \\ Total (0–88) & \(53.50\pm 15.965\) & \(42.53\pm 18.697\) & \(33.37\pm 17.582\) & \(28.60\pm 17.859\) & \(0.065\) & \(0.000\) * & \(0.000\) * \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: The OQLQ score (total and subdomain) at each stage of the OFA group, compared using the Friedman and post hoc Dunn tests. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Domain** & **T1** & **T2** & **T3** & **T4** & **T1–T2** & **T1–T3** & **T1–T4** \\  & **Mean \(\pm\) S.D.** & **Mean \(\pm\) S.D.** & **Mean \(\pm\) S.D.** & **Mean \(\pm\) S.D.** & **_p Value_ & **_p Value_ & **_p Value_** \\ \hline Social (0–32) & \(16.43\pm 7.767\) & \(12.63\pm 7.721\) & \(9.70\pm 6.401\) & \(7.60\pm 6.414\) & \(0.242\) & \(0.000\) * & \(0.000\) * \\ Esthetic (0–20) & \(14.93\pm 3.095\) & \(10.13\pm 4.754\) & \(8.20\pm 4.766\) & \(5.97\pm 4.738\) & \(0.016\) * & \(0.000\) * & \(0.000\) * \\ Function (0–20) & \(11.77\pm 4.531\) & \(12.70\pm 4.388\) & \(9.33\pm 4.003\) & \(6.63\pm 4.263\) & \(1.000\) & \(0.167\) & \(0.001\) * \\ Awareness (0–16) & \(8.77\pm 4.199\) & \(8.17\pm 3.687\) & \(6.50\pm 3.812\) & \(5.67\pm 4.196\) & \(1.000\) & \(0.036\) * & \(0.001\) * \\ Total (0–88) & \(51.90\pm 15.273\) & \(43.30\pm 17.771\) & \(33.73\pm 15.739\) & \(25.87\pm 17.049\) & \(0.113\) & \(0.000\) * & \(0.000\) * \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: The OQLQ score (total and subdomain) at each stage of the SFA group, compared using the Friedman and post hoc Dunn tests.