Management of Teeth in the Line of Mandibular Angle Fractures Treated with Open Reduction and Internal Fixation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Nima Khavanin, H. Jazayeri, Thomas Q. Xu, Rachel A. Pedreira, Joseph Lopez, Sashank K Reddy, T. Shamliyan, Z. Peacock, A. Dorafshar
{"title":"Management of Teeth in the Line of Mandibular Angle Fractures Treated with Open Reduction and Internal Fixation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Nima Khavanin, H. Jazayeri, Thomas Q. Xu, Rachel A. Pedreira, Joseph Lopez, Sashank K Reddy, T. Shamliyan, Z. Peacock, A. Dorafshar","doi":"10.1097/PRS.0000000000006255","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\nMandibular angle fractures are common and frequently involve a tooth in the fracture line. Despite trends toward more conservative indications for tooth extraction during open repair, the literature remains heterogeneous. This review aims to ascertain the effect of tooth extraction/retention on patient outcomes following mandible open reduction and internal fixation and to evaluate the evidence surrounding indications for extraction.\n\n\nMETHODS\nPubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Elsevier text mining tool database, and clinicaltrials.gov were queried through March of 2018 for English language publication on adults with traumatic mandibular fractures. The review protocol was not registered online. Quality of evidence was assigned using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. Meta-analyses were performed when definitions of outcomes were deemed similar.\n\n\nRESULTS\nOverall, 26 of 1212 identified studies met inclusion criteria. Indications for tooth extraction and rates of extraction varied considerably across studies. The quality of evidence was low or very low for all outcomes. Tooth retention was associated with lower overall complications (OR, 0.54; 95 percent CI, 0.37 to 0.79), major complications requiring readmission or reoperation (OR, 0.47; 95 percent CI, 0.24 to 0.92), and malocclusion (OR, 0.56; 95 percent CI, 0.32 to 0.97); there was no difference in wound issues or nonunion. Removal of asymptomatic teeth was associated with inferior alveolar nerve injury (39.4 percent versus 16.1 percent).\n\n\nCONCLUSIONS\nThe literature is limited by retrospective study deign and poor follow-up; however, when indicated, tooth extraction is not associated with an increased risk of infection or nonunion. Removal of asymptomatic teeth was associated with a risk of inferior alveolar nerve injury. Additional high-quality studies are needed to evaluate potentially expanded indications for tooth extraction.","PeriodicalId":20168,"journal":{"name":"Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery","volume":"5 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"12","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000006255","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 12

Abstract

BACKGROUND Mandibular angle fractures are common and frequently involve a tooth in the fracture line. Despite trends toward more conservative indications for tooth extraction during open repair, the literature remains heterogeneous. This review aims to ascertain the effect of tooth extraction/retention on patient outcomes following mandible open reduction and internal fixation and to evaluate the evidence surrounding indications for extraction. METHODS PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Elsevier text mining tool database, and clinicaltrials.gov were queried through March of 2018 for English language publication on adults with traumatic mandibular fractures. The review protocol was not registered online. Quality of evidence was assigned using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. Meta-analyses were performed when definitions of outcomes were deemed similar. RESULTS Overall, 26 of 1212 identified studies met inclusion criteria. Indications for tooth extraction and rates of extraction varied considerably across studies. The quality of evidence was low or very low for all outcomes. Tooth retention was associated with lower overall complications (OR, 0.54; 95 percent CI, 0.37 to 0.79), major complications requiring readmission or reoperation (OR, 0.47; 95 percent CI, 0.24 to 0.92), and malocclusion (OR, 0.56; 95 percent CI, 0.32 to 0.97); there was no difference in wound issues or nonunion. Removal of asymptomatic teeth was associated with inferior alveolar nerve injury (39.4 percent versus 16.1 percent). CONCLUSIONS The literature is limited by retrospective study deign and poor follow-up; however, when indicated, tooth extraction is not associated with an increased risk of infection or nonunion. Removal of asymptomatic teeth was associated with a risk of inferior alveolar nerve injury. Additional high-quality studies are needed to evaluate potentially expanded indications for tooth extraction.
下颌角骨折线上牙齿切开复位内固定的处理:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
背景:下颌角骨折是常见的,并且经常涉及骨折线上的牙齿。尽管开放式修复中拔牙的适应症趋于保守,但文献仍然不一致。本综述旨在确定拔牙/保留对患者下颌骨切开复位和内固定后预后的影响,并评估拔牙指征的证据。方法通过spubmed、EMBASE、Cochrane图书馆、Elsevier文本挖掘工具数据库和clinicaltrials.gov查询2018年3月前关于成人外伤性下颌骨折的英文出版物。审查方案未在网上注册。证据质量采用建议分级评估、发展和评价方法进行分配。当结果的定义被认为相似时,进行meta分析。结果1212项研究中有26项符合纳入标准。在不同的研究中,拔牙的适应症和拔牙率差异很大。所有结果的证据质量都很低或非常低。牙齿保留与较低的总体并发症相关(OR, 0.54;95% CI, 0.37 - 0.79),主要并发症需要再入院或再手术(or, 0.47;95% CI, 0.24 - 0.92)和错颌(OR, 0.56;95% CI, 0.32 - 0.97);在伤口问题或不愈合方面没有差异。无症状牙齿的拔除与下牙槽神经损伤相关(39.4%对16.1%)。结论:文献受回顾性研究设计和随访不良的限制;然而,当指征时,拔牙并不会增加感染或骨不连的风险。无症状牙齿的拔除与下牙槽神经损伤的风险相关。需要更多的高质量研究来评估可能扩大的拔牙适应症。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信