Search

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.)

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.)

Aim: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare, in the lower third molar surgery, the osteotomy techniques with rotary instruments and piezoelectric motors., Methods: An electronic search was conducted using the following databases: Pubmed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register. Inclusion criteria were: studies in humans, randomized or nonrandomized, comparing the extraction of third molars that required osteotomy and/or odontosection with rotary instrument and osteotomy and/or odontosection with piezoelectric motor assistance. The analysis and inclusion of articles was performed by two reviewers independently. An evaluation of the quality of articles and data extraction was carried out., Results: From a total of nine hundred seventy four (974) trials, eleven articles were included in the qualitative analysis, and seven were included in the quantitative analysis. Rotary instruments were faster than the piezoelectric surgery (95 % CI 0.34 to 1.16). The piezoelectric surgery showed better results when compared with roatry instruments when trismus was assessed in 2 (95 % CI 0.65 to 1.69), 3 (95 % CI 0.63 to 1.67) and 5 (95 % CI 0.03 to 2.26) days after surgery. Seven days after surgery, there were no differences between the techniques (95 % CI (-0.022) to (-1.49))., Conclusion: The piezoelectric surgery was effective in reducing pain, swelling and trismus in third molar surgery, but the same requires greater surgical time than the rotary instruments.