-
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 -
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 -
Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology 2023In early breast cancer (BC) the impact of denosumab on survival outcomes is still unclear. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess efficacy and...
BACKGROUND
In early breast cancer (BC) the impact of denosumab on survival outcomes is still unclear. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess efficacy and safety of adjuvant denosumab in addition to standard anticancer therapy.
METHODS
PubMed, CENTRAL, Scopus, Embase, and oncological meetings websites were screened to identify potentially eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Survival outcomes were disease-free survival (DFS), bone-metastasis-free survival (BMFS), and overall survival (OS). Fracture incidence and time to first fracture were bone-health outcomes. Osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ), atypical femur fractures (AFF), and other adverse events were also evaluated. Pooled hazard ratios (HRs) and risk ratios (RR) with respective 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were computed using a random-effects model. Exploratory subgroup analyses were performed.
RESULTS
Two phase III RCTs were included, the Austrian Breast & Colorectal Cancer Study Group-18 (ABCSG-18) and the D-CARE trials, for a total of 7929 patients. In the ABCSG-18 trial, denosumab was administered every 6 months during endocrine therapy (for a median of seven cycles) while the D-CARE trial used an intensive schedule for a total treatment duration of 5 years. Adjuvant denosumab showed no difference in DFS (HR: 0.932; 95% CI: 0.748-1.162), BMFS (HR: 0.9896; 95% CI: 0.751-1.070), and OS (HR: 0.917; 95% CI: 0.718-1.171) compared to placebo in the overall population. In hormone receptor positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) negative BC patients, a DFS (HR: 0.883; 95% CI: 0.782-0.996) and BMFS (HR: 0.832; 95% CI: 0.714-0.970) benefit was observed and BMFS was prolonged in all hormone receptor positive patients (HR: 0.850; 95% CI: 0.735-0.983). Fracture incidence (RR: 0.787; 95% CI: 0.696-0.890) and time to first fracture (HR: 0.760; 95% CI: 0.665-0.869) were also improved. No increase in overall toxicity was seen with denosumab and no differences were observed for ONJ and AFF between the 60-mg every 6-month schedule and placebo.
CONCLUSION
Denosumab addition to anticancer treatment does not improve DFS, BMFS, or OS in the overall population, although a DFS improvement was observed in hormone receptor positive/HER2 negative BC patients and a BMFS improvement in all hormone receptor positive patients. Bone-health outcomes were improved with no added toxicity with the 60-mg schedule.
REGISTRATION
PROSPERO identifier: CRD42022332787.
PubMed: 37284523
DOI: 10.1177/17588359231173180 -
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 -
Systematic Reviews Mar 2023To inform recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care, we reviewed evidence on the benefits, harms, and acceptability of screening and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Screening for the primary prevention of fragility fractures among adults aged 40 years and older in primary care: systematic reviews of the effects and acceptability of screening and treatment, and the accuracy of risk prediction tools.
BACKGROUND
To inform recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care, we reviewed evidence on the benefits, harms, and acceptability of screening and treatment, and on the accuracy of risk prediction tools for the primary prevention of fragility fractures among adults aged 40 years and older in primary care.
METHODS
For screening effectiveness, accuracy of risk prediction tools, and treatment benefits, our search methods involved integrating studies published up to 2016 from an existing systematic review. Then, to locate more recent studies and any evidence relating to acceptability and treatment harms, we searched online databases (2016 to April 4, 2022 [screening] or to June 1, 2021 [predictive accuracy]; 1995 to June 1, 2021, for acceptability; 2016 to March 2, 2020, for treatment benefits; 2015 to June 24, 2020, for treatment harms), trial registries and gray literature, and hand-searched reviews, guidelines, and the included studies. Two reviewers selected studies, extracted results, and appraised risk of bias, with disagreements resolved by consensus or a third reviewer. The overview of reviews on treatment harms relied on one reviewer, with verification of data by another reviewer to correct errors and omissions. When appropriate, study results were pooled using random effects meta-analysis; otherwise, findings were described narratively. Evidence certainty was rated according to the GRADE approach.
RESULTS
We included 4 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 1 controlled clinical trial (CCT) for the benefits and harms of screening, 1 RCT for comparative benefits and harms of different screening strategies, 32 validation cohort studies for the calibration of risk prediction tools (26 of these reporting on the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool without [i.e., clinical FRAX], or with the inclusion of bone mineral density (BMD) results [i.e., FRAX + BMD]), 27 RCTs for the benefits of treatment, 10 systematic reviews for the harms of treatment, and 12 studies for the acceptability of screening or initiating treatment. In females aged 65 years and older who are willing to independently complete a mailed fracture risk questionnaire (referred to as "selected population"), 2-step screening using a risk assessment tool with or without measurement of BMD probably (moderate certainty) reduces the risk of hip fractures (3 RCTs and 1 CCT, n = 43,736, absolute risk reduction [ARD] = 6.2 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 9.0-2.8 fewer, number needed to screen [NNS] = 161) and clinical fragility fractures (3 RCTs, n = 42,009, ARD = 5.9 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 10.9-0.8 fewer, NNS = 169). It probably does not reduce all-cause mortality (2 RCTs and 1 CCT, n = 26,511, ARD = no difference in 1000, 95% CI 7.1 fewer to 5.3 more) and may (low certainty) not affect health-related quality of life. Benefits for fracture outcomes were not replicated in an offer-to-screen population where the rate of response to mailed screening questionnaires was low. For females aged 68-80 years, population screening may not reduce the risk of hip fractures (1 RCT, n = 34,229, ARD = 0.3 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 4.2 fewer to 3.9 more) or clinical fragility fractures (1 RCT, n = 34,229, ARD = 1.0 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 8.0 fewer to 6.0 more) over 5 years of follow-up. The evidence for serious adverse events among all patients and for all outcomes among males and younger females (<65 years) is very uncertain. We defined overdiagnosis as the identification of high risk in individuals who, if not screened, would never have known that they were at risk and would never have experienced a fragility fracture. This was not directly reported in any of the trials. Estimates using data available in the trials suggest that among "selected" females offered screening, 12% of those meeting age-specific treatment thresholds based on clinical FRAX 10-year hip fracture risk, and 19% of those meeting thresholds based on clinical FRAX 10-year major osteoporotic fracture risk, may be overdiagnosed as being at high risk of fracture. Of those identified as being at high clinical FRAX 10-year hip fracture risk and who were referred for BMD assessment, 24% may be overdiagnosed. One RCT (n = 9268) provided evidence comparing 1-step to 2-step screening among postmenopausal females, but the evidence from this trial was very uncertain. For the calibration of risk prediction tools, evidence from three Canadian studies (n = 67,611) without serious risk of bias concerns indicates that clinical FRAX-Canada may be well calibrated for the 10-year prediction of hip fractures (observed-to-expected fracture ratio [O:E] = 1.13, 95% CI 0.74-1.72, I = 89.2%), and is probably well calibrated for the 10-year prediction of clinical fragility fractures (O:E = 1.10, 95% CI 1.01-1.20, I = 50.4%), both leading to some underestimation of the observed risk. Data from these same studies (n = 61,156) showed that FRAX-Canada with BMD may perform poorly to estimate 10-year hip fracture risk (O:E = 1.31, 95% CI 0.91-2.13, I = 92.7%), but is probably well calibrated for the 10-year prediction of clinical fragility fractures, with some underestimation of the observed risk (O:E 1.16, 95% CI 1.12-1.20, I = 0%). The Canadian Association of Radiologists and Osteoporosis Canada Risk Assessment (CAROC) tool may be well calibrated to predict a category of risk for 10-year clinical fractures (low, moderate, or high risk; 1 study, n = 34,060). The evidence for most other tools was limited, or in the case of FRAX tools calibrated for countries other than Canada, very uncertain due to serious risk of bias concerns and large inconsistency in findings across studies. Postmenopausal females in a primary prevention population defined as <50% prevalence of prior fragility fracture (median 16.9%, range 0 to 48% when reported in the trials) and at risk of fragility fracture, treatment with bisphosphonates as a class (median 2 years, range 1-6 years) probably reduces the risk of clinical fragility fractures (19 RCTs, n = 22,482, ARD = 11.1 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 15.0-6.6 fewer, [number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome] NNT = 90), and may reduce the risk of hip fractures (14 RCTs, n = 21,038, ARD = 2.9 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 4.6-0.9 fewer, NNT = 345) and clinical vertebral fractures (11 RCTs, n = 8921, ARD = 10.0 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 14.0-3.9 fewer, NNT = 100); it may not reduce all-cause mortality. There is low certainty evidence of little-to-no reduction in hip fractures with any individual bisphosphonate, but all provided evidence of decreased risk of clinical fragility fractures (moderate certainty for alendronate [NNT=68] and zoledronic acid [NNT=50], low certainty for risedronate [NNT=128]) among postmenopausal females. Evidence for an impact on risk of clinical vertebral fractures is very uncertain for alendronate and risedronate; zoledronic acid may reduce the risk of this outcome (4 RCTs, n = 2367, ARD = 18.7 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 25.6-6.6 fewer, NNT = 54) for postmenopausal females. Denosumab probably reduces the risk of clinical fragility fractures (6 RCTs, n = 9473, ARD = 9.1 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 12.1-5.6 fewer, NNT = 110) and clinical vertebral fractures (4 RCTs, n = 8639, ARD = 16.0 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 18.6-12.1 fewer, NNT=62), but may make little-to-no difference in the risk of hip fractures among postmenopausal females. Denosumab probably makes little-to-no difference in the risk of all-cause mortality or health-related quality of life among postmenopausal females. Evidence in males is limited to two trials (1 zoledronic acid, 1 denosumab); in this population, zoledronic acid may make little-to-no difference in the risk of hip or clinical fragility fractures, and evidence for all-cause mortality is very uncertain. The evidence for treatment with denosumab in males is very uncertain for all fracture outcomes (hip, clinical fragility, clinical vertebral) and all-cause mortality. There is moderate certainty evidence that treatment causes a small number of patients to experience a non-serious adverse event, notably non-serious gastrointestinal events (e.g., abdominal pain, reflux) with alendronate (50 RCTs, n = 22,549, ARD = 16.3 more in 1000, 95% CI 2.4-31.3 more, [number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome] NNH = 61) but not with risedronate; influenza-like symptoms with zoledronic acid (5 RCTs, n = 10,695, ARD = 142.5 more in 1000, 95% CI 105.5-188.5 more, NNH = 7); and non-serious gastrointestinal adverse events (3 RCTs, n = 8454, ARD = 64.5 more in 1000, 95% CI 26.4-13.3 more, NNH = 16), dermatologic adverse events (3 RCTs, n = 8454, ARD = 15.6 more in 1000, 95% CI 7.6-27.0 more, NNH = 64), and infections (any severity; 4 RCTs, n = 8691, ARD = 1.8 more in 1000, 95% CI 0.1-4.0 more, NNH = 556) with denosumab. For serious adverse events overall and specific to stroke and myocardial infarction, treatment with bisphosphonates probably makes little-to-no difference; evidence for other specific serious harms was less certain or not available. There was low certainty evidence for an increased risk for the rare occurrence of atypical femoral fractures (0.06 to 0.08 more in 1000) and osteonecrosis of the jaw (0.22 more in 1000) with bisphosphonates (most evidence for alendronate). The evidence for these rare outcomes and for rebound fractures with denosumab was very uncertain. Younger (lower risk) females have high willingness to be screened. A minority of postmenopausal females at increased risk for fracture may accept treatment. Further, there is large heterogeneity in the level of risk at which patients may be accepting of initiating treatment, and treatment effects appear to be overestimated.
CONCLUSION
An offer of 2-step screening with risk assessment and BMD measurement to selected postmenopausal females with low prevalence of prior fracture probably results in a small reduction in the risk of clinical fragility fracture and hip fracture compared to no screening. These findings were most applicable to the use of clinical FRAX for risk assessment and were not replicated in the offer-to-screen population where the rate of response to mailed screening questionnaires was low. Limited direct evidence on harms of screening were available; using study data to provide estimates, there may be a moderate degree of overdiagnosis of high risk for fracture to consider. The evidence for younger females and males is very limited. The benefits of screening and treatment need to be weighed against the potential for harm; patient views on the acceptability of treatment are highly variable.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO): CRD42019123767.
Topics: Adult; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Alendronate; Canada; Denosumab; Diphosphonates; Hip Fractures; Osteoporotic Fractures; Primary Health Care; Primary Prevention; Risedronic Acid; Systematic Reviews as Topic; Zoledronic Acid
PubMed: 36945065
DOI: 10.1186/s13643-023-02181-w -
Otolaryngology--head and Neck Surgery :... May 2023The aim of this study is to review the current literature on treatment of subcondylar fractures using traditional open reduction internal fixation (ORIF), closed... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study is to review the current literature on treatment of subcondylar fractures using traditional open reduction internal fixation (ORIF), closed reduction with maxillomandibular fixation (MMF), and endoscopic open approaches.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, Clinicaltrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP.
REVIEW METHODS
A comprehensive database search was performed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. All English-only texts published in the last 20 years with ≥10 patients were included. Studies that included patients <16 years old were excluded.
RESULTS
Thirty-two studies met the final inclusion criteria. Nine studies compared ORIF with closed reduction using MMF, 12 studies evaluated ORIF via different approaches, and 10 studies evaluated outcomes after endoscopic approaches. Five studies reported significant improvement in mouth opening with ORIF compared to closed reduction. In 1 study that recorded patient-reported outcomes measure (FACE-Q scale), quality of life scores and patient satisfaction were significantly higher in the ORIF group. Among the 10 studies that used the endoscopic approach, transient facial nerve injury ranged from 0% to 10%.
CONCLUSION
Several studies report better mouth opening, dental occlusion, and functional outcomes after ORIF compared to closed reduction, while some found no significant difference. Endoscopic approaches provide ease of access to the condyle with a low incidence of facial nerve injury. However, limitations include special equipment, longer operative times, and a steep learning curve using an endoscope. This review provides surgeons with an overview of the current literature on subcondylar fractures to allow for an individualized management approach for each patient.
Topics: Humans; Adolescent; Treatment Outcome; Fracture Fixation, Internal; Mandibular Fractures; Facial Nerve Injuries; Quality of Life; Mandibular Condyle
PubMed: 36939481
DOI: 10.1002/ohn.185 -
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Apr 2023Many fractures of the mandibular condylar neck are amenable to both open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) and closed treatment. Clinical outcomes following these... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Many fractures of the mandibular condylar neck are amenable to both open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) and closed treatment. Clinical outcomes following these two modalities remains a topic of debate. This systematic review critically appraises the literature to compare them following these treatment options.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to test the null hypothesis of no difference in clinical outcomes in ORIF versus closed treatment of mandibular condyle fractures. The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Elsevier text mining tool database, and clinicaltrials.gov trial registries were queried from 1946 to 2020. The quality of evidence was determined using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology.
RESULTS
Of 1507 screened articles, 14 met inclusion criteria. ORIF was favored significantly when evaluating temporomandibular joint pain [relative risk (RR), 0.3; 95% CI, 0.1 to 0.7] (number needed to treat to prevent an outcome in one patient, 3; 95% CI, 2 to 6), laterotrusive movements of the mandible (mean difference, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.7 to 3.0) (standardized mean difference, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.4 to 1.3), and malocclusion (RR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.4 to 0.7) (number needed to treat to prevent an outcome in one patient, 19; 95% CI, 10 to 200). However, ORIF yielded a higher incidence of postoperative infection (RR, 3.6; 95% CI, 0.9 to 13.8) and must be weighed against the understood risk of facial nerve injury.
CONCLUSIONS
Meta-analysis of high-level evidence in randomized controlled trial suggests that ORIF significantly improves functional outcomes, decreases pain, and restores occlusion and jaw symmetry. These long-term benefits must be weighed against the increased risk of postoperative infection and exposure of the facial nerve to potential injury.
Topics: Humans; Fracture Fixation, Internal; Treatment Outcome; Fracture Fixation; Mandibular Fractures; Mandibular Condyle; Postoperative Complications; Pain
PubMed: 36729783
DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000010009 -
Annals of Internal Medicine Feb 2023The prevalence of osteoporosis is increasing in the United States. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Effectiveness and Safety of Treatments to Prevent Fractures in People With Low Bone Mass or Primary Osteoporosis: A Living Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis for the American College of Physicians.
BACKGROUND
The prevalence of osteoporosis is increasing in the United States.
PURPOSE
To evaluate low bone mass and osteoporosis treatments to prevent fractures.
DATA SOURCES
Ovid MEDLINE ALL, Ovid Evidence Based Medicine Reviews: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and ClinicalTrials.gov from 2014 through February 2022.
STUDY SELECTION
Adults receiving eligible interventions for low bone mass or osteoporosis. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for fracture outcomes, and RCTs and large observational studies ( ≥1000) for harms.
DATA EXTRACTION
Abstracted by 1 reviewer and verified by a second. Independent, dual assessments of risk of bias and certainty of evidence (CoE).
DATA SYNTHESIS
We included 34 RCTs (in 100 publications) and 36 observational studies. Bisphosphonates and denosumab reduced hip, clinical and radiographic vertebral, and other clinical fractures in postmenopausal females with osteoporosis (moderate to high CoE). Bisphosphonates for 36 months or more may increase the risk for atypical femoral fractures (AFFs) and osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ), but the absolute risks were low. Abaloparatide and teriparatide reduced clinical and radiographic vertebral fractures but increased the risk for withdrawals due to adverse events (WAEs; moderate to high CoE). Raloxifene and bazedoxifene for 36 months or more reduced radiographic vertebral but not clinical fractures (low to moderate CoE). Abaloparatide, teriparatide, and sequential romosozumab, then alendronate, may be more effective than bisphosphonates in reducing clinical fractures for 17 to 24 months in older postmenopausal females at very high fracture risk (low to moderate CoE). Bisphosphonates may reduce clinical fractures in older females with low bone mass (low CoE) and radiographic vertebral fractures in males with osteoporosis (low to moderate CoE).
LIMITATION
Few studies examined participants with low bone mass, males, or Black-identifying persons, sequential therapy, or treatment beyond 3 years.
CONCLUSION
Bisphosphonates, denosumab, abaloparatide, teriparatide, and romosozumab, followed by alendronate, reduce clinical fractures in postmenopausal females with osteoporosis. Abaloparatide and teriparatide increased WAEs; longer duration bisphosphonate use may increase AFF and ONJ risk though these events were rare.
PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE
American College of Physicians. (PROSPERO: CRD42021236220).
Topics: Male; Adult; Female; Humans; Aged; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Teriparatide; Alendronate; Osteoporosis, Postmenopausal; Denosumab; Network Meta-Analysis; Fractures, Bone; Osteoporosis; Diphosphonates; Spinal Fractures; Physicians
PubMed: 36592455
DOI: 10.7326/M22-0684 -
Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral... May 2023The recent trend favors the open reduction and internal fixation of condylar fractures to prevent long-term consequences. Nonendoscopic intraoral approach is an option... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
The recent trend favors the open reduction and internal fixation of condylar fractures to prevent long-term consequences. Nonendoscopic intraoral approach is an option for management without a visible scar. The purpose of this systematic review was to explore the evidence, armamentarium, methods of reduction and fixation, challenges, and complications.
STUDY DESIGN
We have systematically reviewed published articles on the intraoral approach for condylar fracture management following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The search was conducted in PubMed, Google Scholar, Semantic Scholar, and Cochrane library database, to find relevant articles from January 1980 to March 2022. Descriptive statistics were applied to obtain the results.
RESULTS
Finally, 23 studies were included. The incision described for the intraoral approach was similar to sagittal split osteotomy in all studies. A wide array of specialized instruments, methods, and challenges has been outlined for visualization, reduction, and fixation. The incidence of complications in the entire review was 23% (72/306).
CONCLUSION
The challenges encountered in the nonendoscopic intraoral approach for condylar fracture management can be negated with the use of specialized instruments and with experience. However, further research is warranted for a specialized set of miniature instruments to ease the procedure, make it time-efficient and optimize hardware selection.
Topics: Humans; Mandibular Condyle; Mandibular Fractures; Fracture Fixation, Internal; Osteotomy
PubMed: 36257907
DOI: 10.1016/j.oooo.2022.09.003 -
Journal of Stomatology, Oral and... Nov 2022The aim of this study is to compare the outcomes after using one miniplate fixation in the external oblique ridge versus two miniplate fixation for mandibular angle... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
The aim of this study is to compare the outcomes after using one miniplate fixation in the external oblique ridge versus two miniplate fixation for mandibular angle fractures.
METHODS
A systematic review of MEDLINE (via PubMed), Scopus and Cochrane Library database was performed (last search date: 04 February 2022) according to the PRISMA guidelines. The research question was addressed using the PICO criteria. Only comparative studies between the two techniques were included. Random-effects model meta-analyses were performed.
RESULTS
Seventeen studies, comprising a total of 1667 patients, 846 undergoing one miniplate fixation and 854 undergoing two miniplate fixation for mandibular angle fractures were identified. No statistically significant differences were observed regarding surgical site infection (odds ratio [OR]= 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI]: [0.69] - [1.28], p = 0.68, I=0.00%), post-operative malocclusion (OR= 0.97, 95% CI: [0.53] - [1.18], p = 0.25, I=0.00%), post-operative neurosensory dysfunction (OR= 0.67, 95% CI: [0.37] - [1.22], p = 0.19, I=73.93%), pseudoarthrosis formation (OR=0.90, 95% CI: [0.58] - [(1.39], p = 0.63, I=0.00%). Wound dehiscence was marginally less common in the one miniplate group (OR=0.52, 95% CI: [0.28] - [0.98], p = 0.04, I=54.34%). The probability of scarring formation (OR=0.13, 95% CI: [0.05] - [0.32], p = 0.00, I=0.00%) and hardware failure (OR=0.36, 95% CI [0.21] - [0.62], p = 0.00, I=29.33%) were statistically significantly higher in the two miniplates arm.
CONCLUSION
One miniplate fixation and two miniplates fixation of mandibular angle fractures have similar results regarding post operative infection, malocclusion, neurosensory dysfunction and pseudoarthrosis formation while wound dehiscence, hardware failure and scarring seem to be more common when two miniplates are used as a fixation technique.
Topics: Humans; Bone Plates; Fracture Fixation, Internal; Pseudarthrosis; Cicatrix; Mandibular Fractures; Malocclusion
PubMed: 35872351
DOI: 10.1016/j.jormas.2022.07.008