Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: facial fractures (FFs) are one of the most common types of fractures that oral and maxillofacial surgeons deal with. These fractures are mainly caused by trauma from fights or vehicle collisions. The nasal bone (37.7%), mandible (30%) and orbital bones (7.6%) are the most commonly affected facial bones. The degree of displacement, severity and type of displacement, as well as the location of the injury, may lead to functional and cosmetic problems; hence a multidisciplinary treatment is needed. The unification of procedures in FFs is a controversial issue, which is reflected in a wide variety of opinions and treatment modalities described in the literature.
Objectives: to describe and map available evidence in systematic reviews (SRs) of therapeutic interventions in FFs.
Methods: we performed a systematic search in MEDLINE, Embase, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Ebsco dentistry oral sciences source, and the Cochrane Library. The search was based on a combination of terms, including all types of FFs according to the classification of the Osteosynthesis Association. We did not restrict the search by date of publication. We included SRs published in Spanish, English and Portuguese. Two reviewers (DC, AV) independently screened references by title and abstract (TiAb). Discrepancies were discussed by the two evaluators, and when they did not agree, disagreements were solved by a third reviewer (NM). The same process was performed for full-text eligibility assessment. We extracted the descriptive information of all the eligible studies, and we will extract all the PICO (Participants, Intervention, Comparator, Outcomes) questions answered by the included studies. We will also perform a quality assessment of all SRs using the AMSTAR II tool (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews).
Preliminary results: we retrieved a total of 484 references through database searching; 435 remained after deduplication. We included 25 records after TiAb screening, and 18 records after full-text eligibility assessment. Five of these studies were from the UK, four from the USA, three from the Netherlands, two from China and one from Canada. All of them were published in English, and all of them were undertaken by academics from universities. The most frequent treatment options were bioresorbable fixation systems with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) (6 studies), titanium fixation systems with ORIF (4 studies), closed treatment (4 studies), osteotomy (3 studies) and non-surgical treatment (1 study). The most common evaluated outcomes were malocclusion (8 studies), maximal interincisal opening (6 studies), pain (6 studies), infection (4 studies), plate removal, latrotrusive, protrusive and paraesthesia (3 studies).
Conclusions: this overview will support surgeons in the application of the best available treatment for different types of FFs.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement: none
Objectives: to describe and map available evidence in systematic reviews (SRs) of therapeutic interventions in FFs.
Methods: we performed a systematic search in MEDLINE, Embase, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Ebsco dentistry oral sciences source, and the Cochrane Library. The search was based on a combination of terms, including all types of FFs according to the classification of the Osteosynthesis Association. We did not restrict the search by date of publication. We included SRs published in Spanish, English and Portuguese. Two reviewers (DC, AV) independently screened references by title and abstract (TiAb). Discrepancies were discussed by the two evaluators, and when they did not agree, disagreements were solved by a third reviewer (NM). The same process was performed for full-text eligibility assessment. We extracted the descriptive information of all the eligible studies, and we will extract all the PICO (Participants, Intervention, Comparator, Outcomes) questions answered by the included studies. We will also perform a quality assessment of all SRs using the AMSTAR II tool (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews).
Preliminary results: we retrieved a total of 484 references through database searching; 435 remained after deduplication. We included 25 records after TiAb screening, and 18 records after full-text eligibility assessment. Five of these studies were from the UK, four from the USA, three from the Netherlands, two from China and one from Canada. All of them were published in English, and all of them were undertaken by academics from universities. The most frequent treatment options were bioresorbable fixation systems with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) (6 studies), titanium fixation systems with ORIF (4 studies), closed treatment (4 studies), osteotomy (3 studies) and non-surgical treatment (1 study). The most common evaluated outcomes were malocclusion (8 studies), maximal interincisal opening (6 studies), pain (6 studies), infection (4 studies), plate removal, latrotrusive, protrusive and paraesthesia (3 studies).
Conclusions: this overview will support surgeons in the application of the best available treatment for different types of FFs.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement: none
PDF