Search

The aim of this systematic review was to determine whether antibiotics, compared to placebo, can prevent infection or dry socket after third molar surgery. A systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed following registration of the protocol (CRD42021276266). Four databases and the grey literature were searched, and papers were selected based on the PICOS question. RoB 2 and GRADE were used to evaluate the risk of bias and certainty of the evidence, respectively. The NMA was performed using Stata. Of 58 randomized clinical trials identified, 34 were included in the NMA. Patients treated with amoxicillin (relative risk (RR) 0.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.38-0.84; low quality of evidence) and those treated with metronidazole (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.31-0.84; low quality of evidence) showed a lower risk of infection and dry socket when compared to patients given a placebo. Postoperative amoxicillin (750 mg) and amoxicillin plus clavulanate (500 mg + 125 mg, or 2000 mg + 125 mg), and preoperative metronidazole (800 mg) are useful to prevent infection or dry socket when compared to placebo. The low rate of infection after third molar surgery, the correct concept of antibiotic prophylaxis, and antibiotic resistance must be taken into account when choosing to treat healthy patients undergoing third molar surgery with antibiotics., Competing Interests: Competing interests None., (Copyright © 2022 International Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The aim of this review was to compare mandibular angle fracture fixation methods that were evaluated through randomized clinical trials considering postoperative complications. Additionally, different treatment methods were ranked based on their performance. A systematic review was performed based on the Cochrane and PRISMA guidelines. The quality of evidence and network meta-analysis were conducted using the GRADE tool and R software, respectively. Four databases were searched, and the papers were selected based on the PICOS strategy. A total of 3584 papers were found. After screening 15 papers were included. One plate placed on lateral border (tension zone) presented lower risk than one plate placed on superior border (tension zone) for infection [risk ratio (RR): 0.48, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.33 to 0.71] and plate removal necessity (RR: 0.44, 95% CI: 0.28 to 0.69), with moderate quality of evidence. There were no significant differences among the mandibular angle fracture treatments for malocclusion and paraesthesia outcomes. In conclusion, one plate placed on the lateral border in the tension zone is the best choice regarding postoperative infection and plate removal necessity when fixing mandibular angle fractures. None of the tested fixation methods were associated with a significant risk of malocclusion and paraesthesia events., (Copyright © 2021 International Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

This systematic review aimed to compare the Erich arch bars (EABs) with intermaxillary fixation (IMF) screws in maxillofacial fractures involving dental occlusion on perioperative parameters. Four electronic databases were searched: MedLine (Pubmed), Web of Science, VHL, and Cochrane Library. Inclusion criteria comprised clinical trials comparing the two IMF methods, assessing at least one of the outcomes: occlusal stability, oral hygiene, quality of life, time to apply and remove IMF appliances, and complications. Risk of bias was evaluated through the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Fifteen papers were included in the qualitative analysis and 12 of those in the meta-analysis. Times for EABs application (mean difference (MD) 46.83; 95% confidence interval (CI): 30.63-63.02) and removal (MD 22.89; 95% CI 14.61-31.17) were longer compared with IMF screws. There is higher risk of glove perforation (risk ratio (RR) 3.81; 95% CI 2.41-6.04) and lower risk of iatrogenic injuries (RR 0.21; 95% CI 0.09-0.48) when placing EABs compared with IMF screws. No significant differences in plaque index were found (MD 1.07; 95% CI -0.17 to 2.31). The quality of this evidence ranged from very low to low and was mainly compromised by risk of bias assessment. Further studies are necessary to evaluate transurgical IMF stability and postoperative occlusal quality and quality of life when comparing EABs with IMF screws., (Copyright © 2020 International Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The aim of this systematic review was to compare the triangular and envelope flaps in mandibular third molar surgery with regard to pain, oedema, and trismus. Secondary outcomes assessed were dehiscence, ecchymosis, alveolar osteitis, periodontal condition, and surgical time. The PRISMA guidelines and recommendations in the Cochrane Handbook were followed, and the review was registered before commencement (PROSPERO; CRD42018112373). The literature search was conducted in the Web of Science, PubMed, Virtual Health Library, Cochrane Library, and Scopus databases and in the grey literature; randomized clinical trials, indexed through November 2018 were included. Three reviewers independently examined the studies. Twenty studies were included in the qualitative analysis, of which 18 were included in the meta-analyses. The flap design did not influence pain, oedema, trismus, dehiscence, or osteitis. The triangular flap was associated with a greater occurrence of postoperative ecchymosis (odds ratio 4.58, 95% confidence interval 1.34 to 15.91, I 2 =0) and lower periodontal probing depth on day 7 postoperative (standardized mean difference -1.36, 95% confidence interval -2.68 to -0.03, I 2 =88%) when compared to the envelope flap in mandibular third molar surgeries., (Copyright © 2020 International Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The aim of this systematic review was to verify whether the presence of a lower third molar in the mandibular angle fracture line is associated with postoperative complications. An electronic survey was conducted in five databases. Eligibility criteria included observational and experimental studies that evaluated the association between the presence of the lower third molar in the fracture line of mandibular angle fractures and possible postoperative complications, including infection, paresthesia, necessity of plate removal, temporomandibular joint disorders, malocclusion, dehiscence, and non-union. Thirty-four papers were included in the qualitative analysis and 26 of those in the meta-analysis. The risk of bias of observational studies was assessed by Newcastle-Ottawa scale and of the clinical trials by Cochrane Collaboration risk-of-bias tool. Absence of the third molar was associated with a lower chance of postoperative infection in angle fractures compared to presence of the tooth (odds ratio 0.55, 95% confidence interval 0.34-0.88). No statistically significant difference between the groups was found for the other outcomes evaluated. The findings of this systematic review suggest that the absence of the third molar in the mandibular angle fracture line is associated with a lower postoperative infection rate when compared to angle fractures with a third molar present., (Copyright © 2019 International Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

This systematic review aimed to answer the following PICO question: Does the intramuscular injection of dexamethasone result in less pain, swelling, and trismus after mandibular third molar removal when compared to other routes of administration or a control group (saline solution injection or no treatment)? An electronic search was conducted in Virtual Health Library, PubMed, and Web of Science, through March 2018. Eligibility criteria included clinical trials. The search strategy resulted in 331 studies. Following the selection process, 15 articles were included in the systematic review; eight of these were included in the meta-analysis. Most of the studies had an unclear risk of bias (Cochrane Handbook assessment). Pain (mean difference (MD) -1.58, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.99 to -1.16) and oedema (MD -1.76, 95% CI -2.38 to -1.14) were lower in the intramuscular dexamethasone group when compared to the control group. When compared to the submucosal route, the intramuscular route was more effective only for pain on the third postoperative day (MD -0.79, 95% CI -1.38 to -0.20). The results suggest that the intramuscular injection of dexamethasone may be an alternative route of administration, since it is effective at reducing pain and oedema when compared to non-steroidal treatment and has similar results to the submucosal route., (Copyright © 2018 International Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The aim of this study was to compare the effects of acupuncture and placebo acupuncture on the control of pain, oedema, and trismus following the extraction of third molars and on the control of preoperative anxiety. Sixteen patients (mean age 22.5±3.45years) each underwent four acupuncture sessions, one prior to each surgery and the others at 24, 48, and 72hours after each surgery (left and right tooth). Oedema was determined using measurements of the face and trismus was determined by maximum mouth opening at baseline and at 24, 48, 72hours and 7days following surgery. Postoperative pain was evaluated by the patients using a visual analogue scale (VAS) at 24, 48, and 72hours following surgery. Anxiety was evaluated using the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory and a VAS at baseline and before and after acupuncture prior to surgery. The statistical analysis was performed using the paired t-test and Wilcoxon test. Acupuncture showed a better performance in the control of oedema at 48hours (P=0.026), 72hours (P=0.046), and 7days (P=0.040) when compared to placebo. There was no statistically significant difference between the acupuncture and placebo groups in the control of pain, trismus, or anxiety., (Copyright © 2018 International Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The aim of this systematic review was to investigate the influence of the presence and position of mandibular third molars in mandibular condyle fractures. An electronic search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and VHL, through January 2016. The eligibility criteria included observational studies. The search strategy resulted in 704 articles. Following the selection process, 13 studies were included in the systematic review and 11 in the meta-analysis. In terms of the risk of bias analysis, six studies presented ≤6 stars in the Newcastle-Ottawa scale assessment. The presence of a mandibular third molar decreased the probability of condylar fracture (cross-sectional and case-control studies: odds ratio (OR) 0.26, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17-0.40, I 2 =87.8%; case-control studies: OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.16-0.58, I 2 =91.6%). The third molar positions most favourable to condylar fracture according to the Pell and Gregory classification are class A (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.09-1.61, I 2 =0%) and class I (OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.05-1.77, I 2 =32.8%). Class B (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.49-0.97, I 2 =56.0%) and class II (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.57-0.87, I 2 =0%) act as protective factors for condylar fracture. The results suggest that the presence of a mandibular third molar decreases the chance of condylar fracture and that the positions of the third molar most favourable for condylar fracture are classes A and I, with classes B and II acting as protective factors., (Copyright © 2017 International Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The aim of this systematic review was to investigate the influence of the presence and position of mandibular third molars on angle fractures. An electronic search was conducted in the PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and VHL databases, through January 2016. The eligibility criteria included observational studies. The search strategy resulted in 704 articles. Following the selection process, 35 studies were included in the systematic review and 28 in the meta-analysis. Twenty studies presented a score of ≤6 stars in the Newcastle-Ottawa scale assessment, indicating a risk of bias in the analysis. The presence of a mandibular third molar increases the chance of an angle fracture (case-control and cross-sectional studies: odds ratio (OR) 3.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.02-4.85, I 2 =83.1%; case-control studies: OR 3.27, 95% CI 2.57-4.16, I 2 =81.3%). The third molar positions most favourable to angle fracture according to the Pell and Gregory classification are class B (OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.06-1.96, I 2 =87.2%) and class II (OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.36-2.04, I 2 =72.4%). Class A (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.45-0.81, I 2 =87.1%) and class I (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.37-0.71, I 2 =89.4%) act as protective factors for angle fracture. The results suggest that the presence of the third molar increases the chance of angle fracture by 3.27 times and that the most favourable positions of the third molar for angle fracture are classes B and II, whilst classes A and I act as protective factors., (Copyright © 2017 International Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)