-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2022Alveolar osteitis (dry socket) is a complication of dental extractions more often involving mandibular molar teeth. It is associated with severe pain developing 2 to 3... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Alveolar osteitis (dry socket) is a complication of dental extractions more often involving mandibular molar teeth. It is associated with severe pain developing 2 to 3 days postoperatively with or without halitosis, a socket that may be partially or totally devoid of a blood clot, and increased postoperative visits. This is an update of the Cochrane Review first published in 2012. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of local interventions used for the prevention and treatment of alveolar osteitis (dry socket) following tooth extraction.
SEARCH METHODS
An Information Specialist searched four bibliographic databases up to 28 September 2021 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished, and ongoing studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials of adults over 18 years of age who were having permanent teeth extracted or who had developed dry socket postextraction. We included studies with any type of local intervention used for the prevention or treatment of dry socket, compared to a different local intervention, placebo or no treatment. We excluded studies reporting on systemic use of antibiotics or the use of surgical techniques because these interventions are evaluated in separate Cochrane Reviews.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We followed Cochrane statistical guidelines and reported dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RR) and calculated 95% confidence intervals (CI) using random-effects models. For some of the split-mouth studies with sparse data, it was not possible to calculate RR so we calculated the exact odds ratio (OR) instead. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the body of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 49 trials with 6771 participants; 39 trials (with 6219 participants) investigated prevention of dry socket and 10 studies (with 552 participants) looked at the treatment of dry socket. 16 studies were at high risk of bias, 30 studies at unclear risk of bias, and 3 studies at low risk of bias. Chlorhexidine in the prevention of dry socket When compared to placebo, rinsing with chlorhexidine mouthrinses (0.12% and 0.2% concentrations) both before and 24 hours after extraction(s) substantially reduced the risk of developing dry socket with an OR of 0.38 (95% CI 0.25 to 0.58; P < 0.00001; 6 trials, 1547 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The prevalence of dry socket varies from 1% to 5% in routine dental extractions to upwards of 30% in surgically extracted third molars. The number of patients needed to be treated (NNT) with chlorhexidine rinse to prevent one patient having dry socket was 162 (95% CI 155 to 240), 33 (95% CI 27 to 49), and 7 (95% CI 5 to 10) for control prevalence of dry socket 0.01, 0.05, and 0.30 respectively. Compared to placebo, placing chlorhexidine gel intrasocket after extractions reduced the odds of developing a dry socket by 58% with an OR of 0.44 (95% CI 0.27 to 0.71; P = 0.0008; 7 trials, 753 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The NNT with chlorhexidine gel (0.2%) to prevent one patient developing dry socket was 180 (95% CI 137 to 347), 37 (95% CI 28 to 72), and 7 (95% CI 5 to 15) for control prevalence of dry socket of 0.01, 0.05, and 0.30 respectively. Compared to chlorhexidine rinse (0.12%), placing chlorhexidine gel (0.2%) intrasocket after extractions was not superior in reducing the risk of dry socket (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.20; P = 0.22; 2 trials, 383 participants; low-certainty evidence). The present review found some evidence for the association of minor adverse reactions with use of 0.12%, 0.2% chlorhexidine mouthrinses (alteration in taste, staining of teeth, stomatitis) though most studies were not designed explicitly to detect the presence of hypersensitivity reactions to mouthwash as part of the study protocol. No adverse events were reported in relation to the use of 0.2% chlorhexidine gel placed directly into a socket. Platelet rich plasma in the prevention of dry socket Compared to placebo, placing platelet rich plasma after extractions was not superior in reducing the risk of having a dry socket (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.33; P = 0.17; 2 studies, 127 participants; very low-certainty evidence). A further 21 intrasocket interventions to prevent dry socket were each evaluated in single studies, and there is insufficient evidence to determine their effects. Zinc oxide eugenol versus Alvogyl in the treatment of dry socket Two studies, with 80 participants, showed that Alvogyl (old formulation) is more effective than zinc oxide eugenol at reducing pain at day 7 (mean difference (MD) -1.40, 95% CI -1.75 to -1.04; P < 0.00001; 2 studies, 80 participants; very low-certainty evidence) A further nine interventions for the treatment of dry socket were evaluated in single studies, providing insufficient evidence to determine their effects.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Tooth extractions are generally undertaken by dentists for a variety of reasons, however, all but five studies included in the present review included participants undergoing extraction of third molars, most of which were undertaken by oral surgeons. There is moderate-certainty evidence that rinsing with chlorhexidine (0.12% and 0.2%) or placing chlorhexidine gel (0.2%) in the sockets of extracted teeth, probably results in a reduction in dry socket. There was insufficient evidence to determine the effects of the other 21 preventative interventions each evaluated in single studies. There was limited evidence of very low certainty that Alvogyl (old formulation) may reduce pain at day 7 in patients with dry socket when compared to zinc oxide eugenol.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Chlorhexidine; Dry Socket; Eugenol; Humans; Mouthwashes; Pain; Zinc Oxide
PubMed: 36156769
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006968.pub3 -
Health Technology Assessment... Jun 2020Impacted third molars are third molars that are blocked, by soft tissue or bone, from fully erupting through the gum. This can cause pain and disease. The treatment...
BACKGROUND
Impacted third molars are third molars that are blocked, by soft tissue or bone, from fully erupting through the gum. This can cause pain and disease. The treatment options for people with impacted third molars are removal or retention with standard care. If there are pathological changes, the current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance states that the impacted third molar should be removed.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this study was to appraise the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the prophylactic removal of impacted mandibular third molars compared with retention of, and standard care for, impacted third molars.
METHODS
Five electronic databases were searched (1999 to 29 April 2016) to identify relevant evidence [The Cochrane Library (searched 4 April 2016 and 29 April 2016), MEDLINE (searched 4 April 2016 and 29 April 2016), EMBASE (searched 4 April 2016 and 29 April 2016), EconLit (searched 4 April 2016 and 29 April 2016) and NHS Economic Evaluation Database (searched 4 April 2016)]. Studies that compared the prophylactic removal of impacted mandibular third molars with retention and standard care or studies that assessed the outcomes from either approach were included. The clinical outcomes considered were pathology associated with retention, post-operative complications following extraction and adverse effects of treatment. Cost-effectiveness outcomes included UK costs and health-related quality-of-life measures. In addition, the assessment group constructed a de novo economic model to compare the cost-effectiveness of a prophylactic removal strategy with that of retention and standard care.
RESULTS
The clinical review identified four cohort studies and nine systematic reviews. In the two studies that reported on surgical complications, no serious complications were reported. Pathological changes due to retention of asymptomatic impacted mandibular third molars were reported by three studies. In these studies, the extraction rate for retained impacted mandibular third molars varied from 5.5% to 31.4%; this variation can be explained by the differing follow-up periods (i.e. 1 and 5 years). The findings from this review are consistent with the findings from previous systematic reviews. Two published cost-effectiveness studies were identified. The authors of both studies concluded that, to their knowledge, there is currently no economic evidence to support the prophylactic removal of impacted mandibular third molars. The results generated by the assessment group's lifetime economic model indicated that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life-year gained for the comparison of a prophylactic removal strategy with a retention and standard care strategy is £11,741 for people aged 20 years with asymptomatic impacted mandibular third molars. The incremental cost per person associated with prophylactic extraction is £55.71, with an incremental quality-adjusted life-year gain of 0.005 per person. The base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life-year gained was found to be robust when a range of sensitivity and scenario analyses were carried out.
LIMITATIONS
Limitations of the study included that no head-to-head trials comparing the effectiveness of prophylactic removal of impacted mandibular third molars with retention and standard care were identified with the assessment group model that was built on observational data. Utility data on impacted mandibular third molars and their symptoms are lacking.
CONCLUSIONS
The evidence comparing the prophylactic removal of impacted mandibular third molars with retention and standard care is very limited. However, the results from an exploratory assessment group model, which uses available evidence on symptom development and extraction rates of retained impacted mandibular third molars, suggest that prophylactic removal may be the more cost-effective strategy.
FUTURE WORK
Effectiveness evidence is lacking. Head-to-head trials comparing the prophylactic removal of trouble-free impacted mandibular third molars with retention and watchful waiting are required. If this is not possible, routine clinical data, using common definitions and outcome reporting methods, should be collected.
STUDY REGISTRATION
This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016037776.
FUNDING
This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in ; Vol. 24, No. 30. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Topics: Cost-Benefit Analysis; Humans; Molar, Third; Treatment Outcome; United Kingdom
PubMed: 32589125
DOI: 10.3310/hta24300 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2017Dental sealants were introduced in the 1960s to help prevent dental caries, mainly in the pits and fissures of occlusal tooth surfaces. Sealants act to prevent bacteria... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Dental sealants were introduced in the 1960s to help prevent dental caries, mainly in the pits and fissures of occlusal tooth surfaces. Sealants act to prevent bacteria growth that can lead to dental decay. Evidence suggests that fissure sealants are effective in preventing caries in children and adolescents compared to no sealants. Effectiveness may, however, be related to caries incidence level of the population. This is an update of a review published in 2004, 2008 and 2013.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the effects of different types of fissure sealants in preventing caries in occlusal surfaces of permanent teeth in children and adolescents.
SEARCH METHODS
Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 3 August 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2016, Issue 7), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 3 August 2016), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 3 August 2016). We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials to 3 August 2016. No restrictions were placed on language or date of publication.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing sealants with no sealant or a different type of sealant material for preventing caries of occlusal surfaces of premolar or molar teeth in children and adolescents aged up to 20 years. Studies required at least 12 months follow-up. We excluded studies that compared compomers to resins/composites.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened search results, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies. We presented outcomes for caries or no caries on occlusal surfaces of permanent molar teeth as odds ratio (OR) or risk ratio (RR). We used mean difference (MD) for mean caries increment. All measures were presented with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We conducted meta-analyses using a random-effects model for comparisons where there were more than three trials; otherwise we used the fixed-effect model. We used GRADE methods to assess evidence quality.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 38 trials that involved a total of 7924 children; seven trials were new for this update (1693 participants). Fifteen trials evaluated the effects of resin-based sealant versus no sealant (3620 participants in 14 studies plus 575 tooth pairs in one study); three trials with evaluated glass ionomer sealant versus no sealant (905 participants); and 24 trials evaluated one type of sealant versus another (4146 participants). Children were aged from 5 to 16 years. Trials rarely reported background exposure to fluoride of trial participants or baseline caries prevalence. Resin-based sealant versus no sealant: second-, third- and fourth-generation resin-based sealants prevented caries in first permanent molars in children aged 5 to 10 years (at 24 months follow-up: OR 0.12, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.19, 7 trials (5 published in the 1970s; 2 in the 2010s), 1548 children randomised, 1322 children evaluated; moderate-quality evidence). If we were to assume that 16% of the control tooth surfaces were decayed during 24 months of follow-up (160 carious teeth per 1000), then applying a resin-based sealant would reduce the proportion of carious surfaces to 5.2% (95% CI 3.13% to 7.37%). Similarly, assuming that 40% of control tooth surfaces were decayed (400 carious teeth per 1000), then applying a resin-based sealant would reduce the proportion of carious surfaces to 6.25% (95% CI 3.84% to 9.63%). If 70% of control tooth surfaces were decayed, there would be 19% decayed surfaces in the sealant group (95% CI 12.3% to 27.2%). This caries-preventive effect was maintained at longer follow-up but evidence quality and quantity was reduced (e.g. at 48 to 54 months of follow-up: OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.28, 4 trials, 482 children evaluated; RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.45, 203 children evaluated). Although studies were generally well conducted, we assessed blinding of outcome assessment for caries at high risk of bias for all trials (blinding of outcome assessment is not possible in sealant studies because outcome assessors can see and identify sealant). Glass ionomer sealant versus no sealant: was evaluated by three studies. Results at 24 months were inconclusive (very low-quality evidence). One sealant versus another sealant: the relative effectiveness of different types of sealants is unknown (very low-quality evidence). We included 24 trials that directly compared two different sealant materials. Comparisons varied in terms of types of sealant assessed, outcome measures chosen and duration of follow-up. Adverse events: only four trials assessed adverse events. No adverse events were reported.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Resin-based sealants applied on occlusal surfaces of permanent molars are effective for preventing caries in children and adolescents. Our review found moderate-quality evidence that resin-based sealants reduced caries by between 11% and 51% compared to no sealant, when measured at 24 months. Similar benefit was seen at timepoints up to 48 months; after longer follow-up, the quantity and quality of evidence was reduced. There was insufficient evidence to judge the effectiveness of glass ionomer sealant or the relative effectiveness of different types of sealants. Information on adverse effects was limited but none occurred where this was reported. Further research with long follow-up is needed.
Topics: Acrylic Resins; Adolescent; Child; Child, Preschool; Dental Caries; Dental Occlusion; Dentition, Permanent; Humans; Molar; Pit and Fissure Sealants; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Silicon Dioxide
PubMed: 28759120
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001830.pub5 -
Journal of Esthetic and Restorative... Jan 2019Defects in the maturation stage of amelogenesis result in a normal volume of enamel but insufficient mineralization, called hypomineralization. Molar-incisor...
INTRODUCTION
Defects in the maturation stage of amelogenesis result in a normal volume of enamel but insufficient mineralization, called hypomineralization. Molar-incisor hypomineralization (MIH), amelogenesis imperfecta and dental fluorosis (DF) are examples of such defects.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the effectiveness of the treatments applied to the different forms of dental hypomineralization.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Embase were screened. The research was limited to studies published in English, Spanish, and Portuguese, until May 30, 2018. The research question was formulated following the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome strategy. The quality of the methodology of each article was evaluated employing the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews.
RESULTS
From the initial research, 7895 references were obtained, of which 33 were included in the systematic review. The following treatments were reported: desensitizing and remineralizing products, resin infiltration, restorations, fissure sealants, tooth bleaching, enamel microabrasion and calcium, and vitamins supplements.
CONCLUSIONS
Although the results are suggestive, there is a clear need for a greater uniformity of the methodologies, thus allowing for the development of clinical guidelines. Nevertheless, it was possible to identify several effective treatments for teeth with MIH (arginine pastes or fluoride varnishes) and DF (tooth bleaching and/or enamel microabrasion).
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
Because MIH, amelogenesis imperfecta, and DF are commonly seen in dental daily practice, it is extremely important to analyze the literature regarding its treatment.
Topics: Dental Enamel; Dental Enamel Hypoplasia; Humans; Incisor; Molar; Pit and Fissure Sealants
PubMed: 30284749
DOI: 10.1111/jerd.12420 -
European Journal of Paediatric Dentistry Dec 2023Molar incisor hypomeralisation (MIH) is a dental condition clinically characterised by the presence of morphological and qualitative enamel defects involving the...
AIM
Molar incisor hypomeralisation (MIH) is a dental condition clinically characterised by the presence of morphological and qualitative enamel defects involving the occlusal and/or incisal third of one or more permanent molars or incisors. Its worldwide prevalence ranges between 2.4 and 40%. Several harmful conditions, such as genetic or medical problems during pregnancy, may act together and increase the risk of MIH. The main objective of this systematic review is to assess whether there is a correlation between MIH and dental caries in mixed or permanent dentition.
METHODS
An electronic search was performed on PubMed (Medline), Scopus and Cochrane Library for articles published from August 2022 to April 2023. Cohort, cross-sectional, retrospective and prospective studies were included. In vitro and animal studies, as well as clinical cases and systematic reviews, were excluded. Studies not differentiating between mixed and permanent dentition were excluded. The observed variables were DMFT (Decayed Missed Filled Teeth) score, DMFS (Decayed Missed Filled Surface) and DMF scores related to FPM (First Permanent Molar) and the clinical prevalence of MIH.
CONCLUSION
DMFT, DMFS and DMFT on FPM scores are significantly different between the group of patients with MIH and the control group. The available evidence supports a correlation between MIH lesions and caries. Caries indexes scores increase proportionally to the severity of MIH.
Topics: Animals; Female; Pregnancy; Humans; Child; Cross-Sectional Studies; Dental Caries; Dental Caries Susceptibility; Molar Hypomineralization; Prevalence; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Molar
PubMed: 38015112
DOI: 10.23804/ejpd.2023.1985 -
Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial... Feb 2019Palatal soft tissue graft harvesting is a common procedure in periodontal and implant dentistry. However, most of the complications after this procedure are associated...
PURPOSE
Palatal soft tissue graft harvesting is a common procedure in periodontal and implant dentistry. However, most of the complications after this procedure are associated with the underestimation of anatomic structures, such as the greater palatine artery (GPA). Therefore, the aim of this study was to provide guidelines for a safety zone for palatal harvesting.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic search was conducted to identify cadaveric and computed tomography (CT) or cone beam CT studies assessing the location of the greater palatine foramen (GPF) and the path of the GPA in relation to the maxillary teeth. The effect of age, gender, and cadaveric and CT or cone beam CT studies on the location of the GPF and on the course of the GPA also was assessed.
RESULTS
This systematic review included 26 studies, investigating 5,768 hemipalates. The most common location of the GPF was in the midpalatal aspect of the third molar (57.08%). As it traverses the palate anteriorly, the distance from the GPA to the maxillary teeth gradually decreases, except in the second premolar region, where it has the tendency to increase (13.8 ± 2.1 mm). The least distance from the GPA to the teeth was found in the canine area (9.9 ± 2.9 mm), whereas the greatest distance was in the second molar region (13.9 ± 1 mm). A safety zone for palatal harvesting was proposed based on the anatomic findings.
CONCLUSIONS
This study provides guidelines for identifying the position of the GPF and defines a safety zone for harvesting a free gingival graft or connective tissue graft, minimizing the risk of GPA injury.
Topics: Arteries; Cone-Beam Computed Tomography; Humans; Molar; Palate; Tissue and Organ Harvesting
PubMed: 30395825
DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2018.10.002 -
Archives of Oral Biology Aug 2023To determine the association between genetic factors and molar-incisor hypomineralisation (MIH) and/or hypomineralised second primary molars by means of a systematic... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To determine the association between genetic factors and molar-incisor hypomineralisation (MIH) and/or hypomineralised second primary molars by means of a systematic review.
DESIGN
A search was performed in Medline-PubMed, Scopus, Embase and Web of Science databases; manual search and search in gray literature were also performed. Selection of articles was performed independently by two researchers. A third examiner was involved in cases of disagreement. Data extraction was performed using an Excel® spreadsheet and independent analysis was performed for each outcome.
RESULTS
Sixteen studies were included. There was an association between MIH and genetic variants related to amelogenesis, immune response, xenobiotic detoxification and other genes. Moreover, interactions between amelogenesis and immune response genes, and SNPs in the aquaporin gene and vitamin D receptors were associated with MIH. Greater agreement of MIH was found in pairs of monozygotic twins than dizygotic twins. The heritability of MIH was 20 %. Hypomineralised second primary molars was associated with SNPs in the hypoxia-related HIF-1 gene and methylation in genes related to amelogenesis.
CONCLUSION
With very low or low certainty of evidence, an association was observed between MIH and SNPs in genes associated with amelogenesis, immune response, xenobiotic detox and ion transport. Interactions between genes related to amelogenesis and immune response as well as aquaporin genes were associated to MIH. With very low certainty of evidence, hypomineralised second primary molars was associated to a hypoxia-related gene and to methylation in genes related to amelogenesis. Moreover, higher agreement of MIH in pairs of monozygotic twins than dizygotic twins was observed.
Topics: Humans; Dental Enamel Hypoplasia; Molar Hypomineralization; Xenobiotics; Amelogenesis; Molar; Prevalence
PubMed: 37210809
DOI: 10.1016/j.archoralbio.2023.105716 -
Journal of Cranio-maxillo-facial... Apr 2018The aim of this study was to investigate the risk of mandibular angle fracture associated with the presence of a mandibular third molar and its position when the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
The aim of this study was to investigate the risk of mandibular angle fracture associated with the presence of a mandibular third molar and its position when the mandibular fracture occurs.
METHODS
A systematic literary search was performed in Pubmed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library for observational studies with at least 250 patients that included frequency of mandibular angle fracture, presence of third molar, and its position.
RESULTS
A total of seven studies were included in the review, from an initial search of 622 titles. The relative risk of mandibular angle fracture with third molar was 1.90 (95% CI = 1.47-2.46). The relative risk of mandibular angle fracture related to third molar position (according to the Pell and Gregory classification) was 1.18 (95% CI = 0.62-2.25), 1.98 (95% CI = 0.95-4.10), 2.72 (95% CI = 1.78-4.16), 1.31 (95% CI = 0.80-2.14), 2.21 (95% CI = 1.69-2.87) and 2.99 (95% CI = 2.12-4.22) for Class A, Class B, Class C, Class I, Class II, and Class III, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
Our meta-analysis reported a two-fold increased risk of mandibular angle fracture with the presence of a third molar in patients who presented with mandibular fractures. Even the third molar position seemed to influence mandibular angle fracture, especially Class C, Class II, and Class III.
Topics: Humans; Mandible; Mandibular Fractures; Molar, Third
PubMed: 29459187
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcms.2017.12.011 -
Quality of Life Research : An... Oct 2018The purpose of this systematic review was to assess the impact of third molar removal on patient's quality of life. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this systematic review was to assess the impact of third molar removal on patient's quality of life.
METHODS
To address the study purpose, investigators designed and implemented a systematic review. The primary outcome variable was the quality of life after third molar extraction. An electronic search was conducted through March, 2017, on the PUBMED, Virtual Health Library (VHL), Web of Science, and OVID, to identify relevant literatures. Research studies (randomized or non-randomized clinical trials) were included that evaluated the quality of life in individuals before and after third molar extraction, using validated measures of oral health-related quality of life with quantitative approach, besides procedures performed under local anesthesia. The R software was used to measure the mean difference on the quality of life between the preoperative period and follow-up days.
RESULTS
A total of 1141 studies were identified. Of this total, 13 articles were selected in the present systematic review, of which six studies were included in the meta-analysis. All of these 13 articles used the OHIP-14, and 4 of this 13 used OHQoLUK-16 to evaluate the quality of life. Regarding quality assessment, four of the 13 included studies in this review received a maximum score of 9 points, according to the Newcastle-Ottawa (NOS). The OHIP-14 mean score on the first postoperative day was 17.57 (95% CI 11.84-23.30, I = 96%) higher than the preoperative period. On the seventh postoperative day, the quality of life assessed by OHIP-14 got worse again.
CONCLUSION
This systematic review revealed that the highest negative impact on quality of life of individuals submitted to third molar surgery was observed on the first postoperative day, decreasing over the follow-up period.
Topics: Adult; Female; Humans; Molar, Third; Quality of Life; Tooth Extraction; Young Adult
PubMed: 29797177
DOI: 10.1007/s11136-018-1889-1 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2020Pathology relating to mandibular wisdom teeth is a frequent presentation to oral and maxillofacial surgeons, and surgical removal of mandibular wisdom teeth is a common... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Pathology relating to mandibular wisdom teeth is a frequent presentation to oral and maxillofacial surgeons, and surgical removal of mandibular wisdom teeth is a common operation. The indications for surgical removal of these teeth are alleviation of local pain, swelling and trismus, and also the prevention of spread of infection that may occasionally threaten life. Surgery is commonly associated with short-term postoperative pain, swelling and trismus. Less frequently, infection, dry socket (alveolar osteitis) and trigeminal nerve injuries may occur. This review focuses on the optimal methods in order to improve patient experience and minimise postoperative morbidity.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the relative benefits and risks of different techniques for surgical removal of mandibular wisdom teeth.
SEARCH METHODS
Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health Trials Register (to 8 July 2019), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library; 2019, Issue 6), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 8 July 2019), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 8 July 2019). We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. We placed no restrictions on the language or date of publication.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials comparing different surgical techniques for the removal of mandibular wisdom teeth.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors were involved in assessing the relevance of identified studies, evaluated the risk of bias in included studies and extracted data. We used risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous data in parallel-group trials (or Peto odds ratios if the event rate was low), odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous data in cross-over or split-mouth studies, and mean differences (MDs) for continuous data. We took into account the pairing of the split-mouth studies in our analyses, and combined parallel-group and split-mouth studies using the generic inverse-variance method. We used the fixed-effect model for three studies or fewer, and random-effects model for more than three studies.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 62 trials with 4643 participants. Several of the trials excluded individuals who were not in excellent health. We assessed 33 of the studies (53%) as being at high risk of bias and 29 as unclear. We report results for our primary outcomes below. Comparisons of different suturing techniques and of drain versus no drain did not report any of our primary outcomes. No studies provided useable data for any of our primary outcomes in relation to coronectomy. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether envelope or triangular flap designs led to more alveolar osteitis (OR 0.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.09 to 1.23; 5 studies; low-certainty evidence), wound infection (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.06; 2 studies; low-certainty evidence), or permanent altered tongue sensation (Peto OR 4.48, 95% CI 0.07 to 286.49; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). In terms of other adverse effects, two studies reported wound dehiscence at up to 30 days after surgery, but found no difference in risk between interventions. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether the use of a lingual retractor affected the risk of permanent altered sensation compared to not using one (Peto OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.00 to 6.82; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). None of our other primary outcomes were reported by studies included in this comparison. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether lingual split with chisel is better than a surgical hand-piece for bone removal in terms of wound infection (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.31 to 3.21; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). Alveolar osteitis, permanent altered sensation, and other adverse effects were not reported. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether there is any difference in alveolar osteitis according to irrigation method (mechanical versus manual: RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.09; 1 study) or irrigation volume (high versus low; RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.02; 1 study), or whether there is any difference in postoperative infection according to irrigation method (mechanical versus manual: RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.43; 1 study) or irrigation volume (low versus high; RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.37; 1 study) (all very low-certainty evidence). These studies did not report permanent altered sensation and adverse effects. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether primary or secondary wound closure led to more alveolar osteitis (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.40; 3 studies; low-certainty evidence), wound infection (RR 4.77, 95% CI 0.24 to 96.34; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence), or adverse effects (bleeding) (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.47; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). These studies did not report permanent sensation changes. Placing platelet rich plasma (PRP) or platelet rich fibrin (PRF) in sockets may reduce the incidence of alveolar osteitis (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.67; 2 studies), but the evidence is of low certainty. Our other primary outcomes were not reported.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In this 2020 update, we added 27 new studies to the original 35 in the 2014 review. Unfortunately, even with the addition of these studies, we have been unable to draw many meaningful conclusions. The small number of trials evaluating each comparison and reporting our primary outcomes, along with methodological biases in the included trials, means that the body of evidence for each of the nine comparisons evaluated is of low or very low certainty. Participant populations in the trials may not be representative of the general population, or even the population undergoing third molar surgery. Many trials excluded individuals who were not in good health, and several excluded those with active infection or who had deep impactions of their third molars. Consequently, we are unable to make firm recommendations to surgeons to inform their techniques for removal of mandibular third molars. The evidence is uncertain, though we note that there is some limited evidence that placing PRP or PRF in sockets may reduce the incidence of dry socket. The evidence provided in this review may be used as a guide for surgeons when selecting and refining their surgical techniques. Ongoing studies may allow us to provide more definitive conclusions in the future.
Topics: Adult; Bias; Drainage; Dry Socket; Humans; Lip; Mandible; Middle Aged; Molar, Third; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sensation Disorders; Surgical Flaps; Surgical Wound Infection; Therapeutic Irrigation; Tongue; Tooth Extraction; Tooth, Impacted; Wound Closure Techniques; Young Adult
PubMed: 32712962
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004345.pub3