Küchler Erika Calvano, Oliveira Maria Beatriz Carvalho Ribeiro de, Madalena Isabela Ribeiro, Kirschneck Christian, Beisel-Memmert Svenja, de Oliveira Daniela Silva Barroso, Schroder Ângela Graciela Deliga, Lepri César Penazzo, de Menezes-Oliveira Maria Angélica Hueb, Marañón-Vásquez Guido Artemio
Department of Orthodontics, University Hospital Bonn, Medical Faculty, 53111 Bonn, Germany.
Department of Biomaterials, University of Uberaba, Uberaba 38010-200, MG, Brazil.
Dent J (Basel). 2024 May 15;12(5):143. doi: 10.3390/dj12050143.
To evaluate differences in the morphology of the frontal sinus in adolescents and adults with different craniofacial patterns, searches up to April 2024 were conducted in six databases and other information sources to identify observational studies. Study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment using the NOS scale were performed independently by two reviewers. Random effects meta-analyses were conducted to estimate the difference in frontal sinus measurements between different craniofacial skeletal patterns (α = 0.05). The certainty of the evidence was evaluated according to GRADE. Fourteen studies were included in the review. All studies had methodological limitations that affected their quality. The syntheses showed that skeletal Class II subjects presented a significantly smaller width of the frontal sinus than skeletal Class I subjects (MD = 0.56; 95% CI: 0.38, 0.74; < 0.0001; I = 3%). Skeletal Class III subjects showed a frontal sinus width (MD = -0.91; 95% CI: -1.35, -0.47; < 0.0001; I = 36%) and area (MD = -28.13; 95% CI: -49.03, -7.23; = 0.0084; I = 66%) significantly larger than those of the skeletal Class I subjects. The available evidence suggests a positive relationship between mandibular and frontal sinus size. There is limited evidence to make reliable estimates of the association of other craniofacial patterns and frontal sinus characteristics. These reported results are not conclusive and should be evaluated carefully due to the very low certainty of the evidence. The current evidence is scarce and consists of studies with methodological limitations; the results of the studies are often inconsistent, and the pooled estimates are imprecise. New high-quality research is still necessary.
为评估不同颅面模式的青少年和成年人额窦形态的差异,截至2024年4月在六个数据库及其他信息来源进行检索,以识别观察性研究。两名评审员独立进行研究选择、数据提取以及使用NOS量表进行质量评估。采用随机效应荟萃分析来估计不同颅面骨骼模式之间额窦测量值的差异(α = 0.05)。根据GRADE评估证据的确定性。该综述纳入了14项研究。所有研究均存在影响其质量的方法学局限性。综合分析表明,骨骼II类受试者的额窦宽度明显小于骨骼I类受试者(MD = 0.56;95% CI:0.38,0.74;P < 0.0001;I² = 3%)。骨骼III类受试者的额窦宽度(MD = -0.91;95% CI:-1.35,-0.47;P < 0.0001;I² = 36%)和面积(MD = -28.13;95% CI:-49.03,-7.23;P = 0.0084;I² = 66%)明显大于骨骼I类受试者。现有证据表明下颌骨大小与额窦大小之间存在正相关关系。关于其他颅面模式与额窦特征关联的可靠估计证据有限。这些报告结果并不确凿,由于证据的确定性非常低,应谨慎评估。目前证据稀少,且所纳入研究存在方法学局限性;研究结果往往不一致,汇总估计也不精确。仍需要新的高质量研究。