Levine Marci H, Spivakovsky Silvia
NYU College of Dentistry, New York, USA.
Evid Based Dent. 2017 Oct 27;18(3):90-91. doi: 10.1038/sj.ebd.6401260.
Data sourcesCochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline via Ovid, Embase via Ovid, US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry and the World Health Organisation (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched until July 2015 followed by hand searching of relevant references.Study selectionUsing no language restrictions, two authors independently assessed for inclusion of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating any intervention for treating oro-antral communications (OAC) and oro-antral fistulae (OAF) due to dental procedures. Quasi-RCTs and crossover trials were excluded.Data extraction and synthesisTwo authors independently assessed for inclusion, resolved disagreement by discussion and a third reviewer was consulted if necessary.Qualitywas determined independently by using GRADE 2004.For the dichotomous outcome complete closure, they expressed the estimate effect as risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI).ResultsA single study that started with 22 participants was included in the review where the overall risk of bias was judged as unclear. The main outcome was complete closure. The study compared pedicled buccal fat pad flap (PBFPF) with buccal flap (BF) and showed no difference in the closure of OAC, with a calculated RR of 1.00, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.20.ConclusionsVery low quality evidence from a small single study provided insufficient proof to judge if there is a difference in the effectiveness of the interventions.
