-
Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral... Nov 2023Surgical innovation led to an endoscopic-assisted intraoral approach for managing condyle fractures. The purpose of this systematic review is to purview the role of the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
Surgical innovation led to an endoscopic-assisted intraoral approach for managing condyle fractures. The purpose of this systematic review is to purview the role of the endoscope and determine the range of information, summarizing the evidence for the benefit of surgeons on an endoscopic-assisted intraoral approach.
STUDY DESIGN
A literature search was conducted in PubMed, Google Scholar, Semantic Scholar, and Cochrane Library databases for studies mentioning the endoscopic intraoral approach for managing mandibular condylar fractures. Outcomes include the role of the endoscope, challenges, adjunct armamentarium, duration, and complications associated with the transoral and transbuccal approach for screw fixation. The meta-analysis was conducted with prevalence estimates and standardized means using STATA.
RESULTS
Thirty-nine studies were included. A 30° angulated, 4-mm-thick endoscope was the most commonly used endoscope. Two mini plates were most commonly used for fixation. Facial nerve weakness was higher in the transbuccal approach (1.24%) than in the transoral approach (0.8%). Pooled analysis (6 studies) showed that the duration of the surgical procedure was less in the transoral approach compared with the transbuccal approach for screw fixation. The bailout was 1.49%.
CONCLUSIONS
The endoscopic-assisted intraoral approach is reliable for condylar fracture management. The transoral and transbuccal approaches can be used for screw fixation with comparable outcomes.
Topics: Humans; Mandibular Condyle; Fracture Fixation, Internal; Endoscopy; Mandibular Fractures; Bone Screws; Treatment Outcome; Bone Plates
PubMed: 37635009
DOI: 10.1016/j.oooo.2023.04.013 -
Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive &... May 2024Currently, there are several methods of achieving maxillomandibular fixation (MMF), each with its unique operative considerations and subsequent patient outcomes and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
Currently, there are several methods of achieving maxillomandibular fixation (MMF), each with its unique operative considerations and subsequent patient outcomes and complications. In this study, we reviewed the literature to evaluate and compare all MMF methods.
METHODS
A systematic review of all MMF types was conducted and post-operative outcome data were analyzed and compared among the different types. Conventional Erich arch bars were compared to hybrid arch bars, MMF screws, and eyelet interdental wiring. A random-effects meta-analysis was used to determine the mean differences, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) with a statistical significance of P < 0.05.
RESULTS
Among the 4234 articles identified, 24 were included, and 17 were meta-analyzed. Time to achieve MMF (-43.38 min; 95% CI, -58.20 to -28.56; P < 0.001), total operative time (-30.33 min; 95% CI, -61.05 to 0.39; P = 0.05), incidence of wire puncture injuries and glove perforations (0.11; 95% CI, 0.04 to 0.30; P < 0.001), and incidence of poor oral hygiene (0.08; 95% CI, 0.02 to 0.28; P < 0.001) were lower for alternative MMF interventions compared to those of the conventional Erich arch bars.
CONCLUSIONS
Alternative MMF methods required shorter operative time to achieve MMF and demonstrated other increased efficiencies of practice such as shorter total operative time and decreased glove perforations, when compared to conventional Erich arch bars. If a patient is a candidate for MMF, the presented alternative MMF techniques should be considered depending on the clinical context and availability of institutional resources.
Topics: Humans; Postoperative Complications; Jaw Fixation Techniques; Mandibular Fractures; Treatment Outcome; Operative Time
PubMed: 38520780
DOI: 10.1016/j.bjps.2024.02.075 -
Journal of Oral Rehabilitation Sep 2023Fractures of the mandibular condyle are the most common jaw fractures. There are several treatment approaches. There is the non-surgical and surgical approach. The... (Review)
Review
Conservative treatment of temporomandibular joint condylar fractures: A systematic review conducted according to PRISMA guidelines and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.
OBJECTIVE
Fractures of the mandibular condyle are the most common jaw fractures. There are several treatment approaches. There is the non-surgical and surgical approach. The purpose of this systematic literature review is to evaluate the indications and contraindications of either method to help the clinician make the best treatment choice.
METHODS
Pubmed, Web of Science and Lilacs were systematically searched until 20 May 2023. Clinical trials were selected to compare the two treatments for condyle fracture and evaluate indications and contraindications.
RESULTS
Out of 2515 papers, four studies were included. The surgical approach allows faster functional recovery and decreases patient discomfort. The study analyses under what circumstances a surgical procedure is more practical than a non-surgical one.
CONCLUSION
There is no evidence regarding the reliability of either method. Both have superimposable results. However, age, type of occlusion and other factors direct the clinician towards a surgical choice.
Topics: Humans; Treatment Outcome; Fracture Fixation, Internal; Conservative Treatment; Reproducibility of Results; Mandibular Fractures; Mandibular Condyle; Temporomandibular Joint Disorders; Temporomandibular Joint
PubMed: 37191365
DOI: 10.1111/joor.13497 -
Clinical Oral Investigations Dec 2023The need for prevention and management of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) has increased with the growing number of patients using antiresorptive... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
The need for prevention and management of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) has increased with the growing number of patients using antiresorptive agents. The scope of this systematic review (SR) was to determine whether the withdrawal of antiresorptive agents is necessary for tooth extractions in patients receiving each of the antiresorptive medications.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The searches were performed using the MEDLINE databases. We selected SRs, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), prospective and retrospective non-randomized clinical (observational) studies, and case reports/case series in this order of preference.
RESULTS
We included one SR, one RCT, five observational studies, and three case reports. Meta-analyses were not conducted because the RCT had an extremely small sample size and the observational studies had different definitions of intervention and comparison that could not be integrated across studies. In this SR, no studies showed a benefit (i.e., a reduction in the incidence of osteonecrosis of the jaw) of short-term withdrawal of antiresorptive agents for tooth extraction. Additionally, no studies examined the harm (i.e., an increase in femoral and vertebral fractures and skeletal-related events during bone metastasis) of withdrawal for tooth extraction.
CONCLUSIONS
We were unable to determine whether withdrawal before and after tooth extraction is necessary with a high certainty of evidence. Future systematic reviews including RCTs with larger samples are expected to provide such evidence.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
This systematic review provides evidence-based information for multidisciplinary collaborations related to patients receiving antiresorptive agents.
Topics: Humans; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Dental Care; Tooth Extraction; Femur; Osteonecrosis
PubMed: 38150155
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-023-05462-9 -
Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial... Apr 2024This study investigates whether the intraoral approach to mandibular open reduction and internal fixation, through exposure to the oral cavity's microbiome, results in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
This study investigates whether the intraoral approach to mandibular open reduction and internal fixation, through exposure to the oral cavity's microbiome, results in higher infection rates compared to the extraoral approach, thus addressing a critical public health concern, potentially offering an opportunity to reduce health-care costs, and aiming to guide effective clinical practice.
METHODS
In this systematic review with meta-analyses, a review of the literature was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. A comprehensive literature search was conducted using Embase and PubMed for articles published between 1989 and 2023. Inclusion criteria targeted studies on open reduction and internal fixation mandibular fractures comparing intraoral and extraoral approaches and reporting infection rates. Exclusion criteria eliminated non-English articles, case reports, and studies with insufficient approach-specific data. The primary outcome was the postoperative infection rate, with surgical approach as the predictor. Covariates such as age, sex, diabetes, and smoking status were included when reported. Data were analyzed using R software, employing random-effects models due to anticipated heterogeneity (I statistics).
RESULTS
From 61 studies, 11 provided direct comparisons involving 1,317 patients-937 intraoral and 380 extraoral. Infection rates were 5.9% for intraoral and 10% for extraoral approaches. Pooled relative risk was 0.94 [95% confidence interval, 0.63, 1.39], suggesting no significant risk difference. Prevalence of infections was estimated at 9% for intraoral and 6.1% for extraoral procedures, with significant heterogeneity (I = 84% for intraoral and 56% for extraoral).
CONCLUSION
Our meta-analysis found no significant difference in infection rates between the two approaches. There is opportunity to expand on reporting complication rates comparing the various approaches to mandibular fixation. Until these data are presented, surgeon preference may dictate the operative approach to expose the mandible for reduction and fixation.
Topics: Humans; Mandibular Fractures; Mandible; Fracture Fixation, Internal; Open Fracture Reduction; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 38336352
DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2024.01.011 -
PloS One 2023The aim of this META-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy of photobiomodulation (PBM) therapy in the treatment of inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) injury due to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this META-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy of photobiomodulation (PBM) therapy in the treatment of inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) injury due to orthognathic surgeries, extraction of impacted third molars and mandibular fractures.
METHODS AND MATERIALS
A electric search was conducted by a combination of manual search and four electric databases including Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane library and Web of Science, with no limitation on language and publication date. Gray literature was searched in ClinicalTrials.gov and googlescholar. All retrieved articles were imported into ENDNOTE software (version X9) and screened by two independent reviewers. All analysis was performed using the REVMAN software (version 5.3).
RESULTS
Finally, 15 randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria for qualitative analysis and 14 for META-analysis from 219 articles. The results showed that PBM therapy had no effect on nerve injury in a short period of time (0-48h, 14 days), but had significant effect over 30 days. However, the effect of photobiomodulation therapy on thermal discrimination was still controversial, most authors supported no significant improvement. By calculating the effective rate of PBM, it was found that there was no significant difference in the onset time of treatment, whether within or over 6 months.
CONCLUSIONS
The results of this META-analysis show that PBM therapy is effective in the treatment of IAN injures no matter it begins early or later. However, due to the limited number of well-designed RCTs and small number of patients in each study, it would be necessary to conduct randomized controlled trials with large sample size, long follow-up time and more standardized treatment and evaluation methods in the future to provide more accurate and clinically meaningful results.
Topics: Humans; Low-Level Light Therapy; Tooth Extraction; Mandibular Nerve; Mandibular Fractures
PubMed: 37561792
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0287833 -
The British Journal of Oral &... Feb 2024This study aims to review surgical treatment in paediatric condylar fractures and describe different types of techniques performed, along with the results obtained from... (Review)
Review
This study aims to review surgical treatment in paediatric condylar fractures and describe different types of techniques performed, along with the results obtained from them. A retrospective review was conducted from records of paediatric patients (from one to 17 years old) who sustained fractures of the mandibular condyle and underwent surgical treatment from 2003 to 2023. The number of patients, age, location, and type of fracture, clinical and imaging examinations, treatment methods, intraoperative/postoperative complications, removal of osteosynthesis material, follow up and outcomes were recorded and analysed. A total of 68 patients with 79 fractures were identified. The most common fracture pattern was condylar neck fracture (61.1%). Of the 68 patients who underwent surgical treatment, one had a complication of minimal temporal paraesthesia and another patient had near-complete resorption of the condyle. A total of 55 patients (81%) reported normal dental occlusion, mouth opening (>35 mm), lateral excursions (7-8 mm), TMJ function, no pain, no deviation of the midline or the jaw, and no ankylosis. Thirteen patients (19%) developed an unsatisfactory result, nine patients (13%) had a jaw deviation on mouth opening, four patients (6%) had mandibular retrusion, and seven patients (10%) had signs of TMJ dysfunction. A total of 59 patients (87%) reported bone completely healed with no signs of bone abnormality; seven patients (10%) had shortening of the condylar neck and/or ramus. Surgical treatment can lead to good or excellent results for severely dislocated and displaced condylar fractures in children and can reduce the unsatisfactory results resulting from closed treatment.
Topics: Humans; Child; Infant; Child, Preschool; Adolescent; Mandibular Condyle; Tooth Ankylosis; Fractures, Bone; Intraoperative Complications; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 38155068
DOI: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2023.10.015 -
The British Journal of Oral &... Dec 2023The choices for managing a condylar head fracture (CHF) of the mandible are either open surgical or closed functional treatments (CFT) and the decision depends on... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The choices for managing a condylar head fracture (CHF) of the mandible are either open surgical or closed functional treatments (CFT) and the decision depends on various factors. The purpose of this systematic review was to ascertain from the available literature whether the open method or CFT yields better outcomes in managing CHF. We have systematically reviewed published articles according to the PRISMA statement. The search was conducted in PubMed, Google Scholar, Semantic Scholar, and the Cochrane Library database for comparative studies about both open and closed treatments from inception until April 2023. The outcomes of interest were mouth opening (MO), protrusion, laterotrusion, postoperative pain, and malocclusion. Eight studies met the inclusion criteria. The review comprised of 326 cases, among which 177 were managed by open methods and 149 were treated by CFT. The incidence of postoperative malocclusion and pain were significantly less in the open group. MO was better in the open treatment group although this was not statistically significant. Protrusion and laterotrusion occurred slightly more in CFT, although these were also statistically not significant. Overall, meta-analysis favoured open methods of managing CHF. Although enough evidence exists for the use of open methods for selected condylar head fractures, CFT still demonstrated favourable outcomes in undisplaced fractures. The selection of a particular treatment method should be individualised on the basis of each particular case considering the risk/benefits. Further high quality randomised trials are needed to establish a therapeutic guideline.
Topics: Humans; Mandibular Condyle; Mandibular Fractures; Fracture Fixation, Internal; Treatment Outcome; Malocclusion
PubMed: 37996317
DOI: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2023.10.010 -
Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral... Apr 2024Mandible fractures are the second most common fractures of the facial skeleton because of the prominent position of the lower jaw. The purpose of this study was to...
PURPOSE
Mandible fractures are the second most common fractures of the facial skeleton because of the prominent position of the lower jaw. The purpose of this study was to calculate the prevalence of mandibular fractures based on their causes and locations.
MATERIALS AND METHOD
A systematic search of 3 electronic databases from January 2010 and January 2020 was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. There were 359 articles identified for screening against selection criteria. The search identified 39 articles to be included in our analysis.
RESULTS
A total of 20,135 patients with 31,468 mandible fractures in this review. There was a 76% male predominance. The third decade was the most common age group (21-30). Motor vehicle accidents (39.89%) were the leading cause of mandible fractures, followed by falls (27.72%) and violence (25.35%). Condylar fractures are the most common cause of MVA and fall (33.11%, 50% respectively). Mandible body fractures are the second most common type of MVA injury (17.06%). When it came to violence, the angle of the mandible was the most common site (31.73%).
CONCLUSIONS
The prevalence of mandible fractures was higher in male patients in the current study, particularly in the second and third decades of life. Road traffic accidents were the most common cause, and the condylar process of the mandible was the most frequently affected region. Demographic data such as age, gender, and mechanism of injury can help surgeons predict and identify specific areas of mandibular fracture.
PubMed: 38601229
DOI: 10.1007/s12663-022-01750-1 -
Scientific Reports Jul 2023Our study aims to estimate the prevalence of surgical site infections (SSI) following open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) for mandibular fractures and to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Our study aims to estimate the prevalence of surgical site infections (SSI) following open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) for mandibular fractures and to determine the effect of potential moderators on it. A systematic literature search (Medline and Scopus databases) was conducted independently by two reviewers. The pooled prevalence with 95% confidence intervals was estimated. Quality assessment as well as outlier and influential analysis were performed. Additionally, subgroup and meta-regression analysis were conducted in order the effect of categorical and continuous variables on the estimated prevalence to be investigated. In total, seventy-five eligible studies (comprising a sum of 5825 participants) were included in this meta-analysis. The overall prevalence of SSI following ORIF for mandibular fractures was estimated as high as 4.2% (95% CI 3.0-5.6%) with significant heterogeneity between studies. One study was identified to be critically influential. In the subgroup analysis, the prevalence was 4.2% (95% CI 2.2-6.6%) among studies conducted in Europe, 4.3% (95% CI 3.1-5.6%) among studies conducted in Asia and higher among those conducted in America (7.3%) (95% CI 4.7-10.3%). It is important for healthcare professionals to be aware of the etiology of these infections, despite the relatively low rate of SSI in these procedures. However, further, well-designed prospective and retrospective studies need to be conducted in order this issue to be fully clarified.
Topics: Humans; Mandibular Fractures; Surgical Wound Infection; Prevalence; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 37430033
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-37652-6