Suppr超能文献

压电式与传统旋转截骨术在下颌第三磨牙手术拔除后预防术后后遗症和并发症的比较:一项系统评价和荟萃分析。

Piezoelectric compared with conventional rotary osteotomy for the prevention of postoperative sequelae and complications after surgical extraction of mandibular third molars: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

作者信息

Badenoch-Jones E K, David M, Lincoln T

机构信息

The University of Queensland, School of Medicine, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.

The University of Queensland, School of Public Health, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.

出版信息

Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016 Dec;54(10):1066-1079. doi: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2016.07.020. Epub 2016 Nov 8.

Abstract

The purpose of this review was to determine if postoperative sequelae (facial swelling, trismus, pain) and neurological complications are reduced when mandibular third molars are surgically extracted using a piezoelectric device for osteotomy compared with conventional rotary burs, and to determine if there is a difference in operating time between the two techniques. Clinical trials were identified through a search (April 2015) on the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and Google Scholar databases. Studies were assessed by study type, characteristics of participants, sample size, surgical technique, cointerventions, outcomes, risk of bias, and findings. We calculated a Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) rating of confidence in the effect estimates. We identified 2515 citations and found 15 eligible clinical trials. Patients who had osteotomies with the piezoelectric device had less facial swelling (standard mean difference -1.15; 95% CI -2.02 to -0.27; p<0.0001), trismus (greater maximum mouth opening, standard mean difference 0.78; 95% CI 0.56 to 1.00; p=0.33) and pain (standard mean difference -0.84; 95% CI -1.55 to -0.13; p<0.0001) at day 1, less facial swelling at day 7 (standard mean difference -0.98; 95% CI -1.52 to -0.44; p=0.05), and a reduced risk of neurological complications (odds ratio (OR) 0.28; 95% CI 0.09 to 0.89; p=0.79). Trismus at day 7 and pain at day 5 did not differ significantly between the two methods. Operating time was longer with the piezoelectric device (standard mean difference 0.83; 95% CI 0.57 to 1.09; p=0.001). The confidence in the effect estimates was low or very low across all outcomes. The findings raise the possibility of an improved clinical healing response to osteotomy with the piezoelectric device compared with one done with conventional rotary burs for surgical extractions of mandibular third molars.

摘要

本综述的目的是确定与传统旋转牙钻相比,使用压电装置进行截骨术拔除下颌第三磨牙时,术后后遗症(面部肿胀、牙关紧闭、疼痛)和神经并发症是否减少,以及确定两种技术在手术时间上是否存在差异。通过检索(2015年4月)PubMed、EMBASE、Cochrane对照试验中央注册库(CENTRAL)和谷歌学术数据库来识别临床试验。研究通过研究类型、参与者特征、样本量、手术技术、联合干预、结果、偏倚风险和研究结果进行评估。我们计算了对效应估计值的推荐分级、评估、制定和评价(GRADE)信心等级。我们识别出2515条引文,发现15项符合条件的临床试验。使用压电装置进行截骨术的患者在第1天面部肿胀较少(标准平均差-1.15;95%可信区间-2.02至-0.27;p<0.0001)、牙关紧闭情况较轻(最大开口度更大,标准平均差0.78;95%可信区间0.56至1.00;p=0.33)且疼痛较轻(标准平均差-0.84;95%可信区间-1.55至-0.13;p<0.0001),在第7天面部肿胀较少(标准平均差-0.98;95%可信区间-1.52至-0.44;p=0.05),并且神经并发症风险降低(优势比(OR)0.28;95%可信区间0.09至0.89;p=0.79)。两种方法在第7天的牙关紧闭情况和第5天的疼痛情况无显著差异。使用压电装置时手术时间更长(标准平均差0.83;95%可信区间0.57至1.09;p=0.001)。所有结果对效应估计值的信心等级为低或非常低。研究结果表明,与使用传统旋转牙钻进行下颌第三磨牙手术拔除的截骨术相比,使用压电装置可能会改善临床愈合反应。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验