CONSORT compliance in randomized surgical trials assessing the analgesic and anti-inflammatory effectiveness of preoperative drug management of patients undergoing mandibular third molar surgery: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Investigate methodological quality of clinical trials in mandibular third molar surgery and its compliance with the consort statement. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An electronic search was performed in five journal websites, chose the five scientific journals with the greatest impact factor in oral and maxillofacial surgery according to the SCImago Journal Rank. The compliance of studies with the CONSORT statement was assessed. Also, the risk of bias of each study was evaluated. RESULTS: Twenty-nine studies were included. The average CONSORT compliance score was 25.50 (79.68%). Most studies were performed in the Americas (n = 14, 48.3%) and Asia (n = 10, 34.5%). Parallel-group (n=15, 51.7%) and split-mouth RCTs (n=11, 38%) were the most prevalent study design. An inverse correlation was observed between the year of publication and the number of Scopus citations (p<0.001), time between acceptance and publication (p<0.001), and time between study completion and publication (p=0.040). CONCLUSIONS: Understanding the correct use of guidelines, such as the CONSORT statement, is necessary to reduce methodological errors and possible bias, thereby ensuring reliable knowledge dissemination.

Do lower third molars increase the risk of complications during mandibular sagittal split osteotomy? Systematic review and meta-analysis.

The aim of this systematic review was to investigate whether the presence of third molars (3Ms) during sagittal split osteotomy of the mandible increases the risk of complications. Searches were conducted using MEDLINE via PubMed, LILACS, Cochrane Central, Scopus, DOSS, and SIGLE via OpenGrey up to December 2020. Fifteen articles were included for evaluation and 14 in the meta-analysis, with a total of 3909 patients and 7651 sagittal split osteotomies (670 complications). Inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) exposure in the proximal segment was the most frequent complication (n = 409), followed by bad splits (n = 151). Meta-analysis revealed no significant increase in the incidence of 3M-related IAN exposure (P = 0.45), post-surgical infections (P = 0.15), osteosynthesis material removal (P = 0.37), or bad splits (P = 0.23). The presence of 3Ms was associated with a reduced risk of nerve disorder (P = 0.05) and favoured bad splits in the lingual plate (P = 0.005). The quality of evidence was very low, mainly due to non-randomized study designs, high risk of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision. This systematic review suggests that the removal of 3Ms before sagittal mandibular osteotomy does not reduce the incidence of complications. Thus, we recommend future better-designed studies with rigorous methodologies and adjustments for confounding factors.

Effect of maxillary advancement on speech and velopharyngeal function of patients with cleft palate: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

This systematic review (SR) aimed to evaluate speech and velopharyngeal function (VPF) changes of patients with cleft palate (CLP) after maxillary advancement (MA) surgery. A two-phase PROSPERO-registered SR (CRD42019141370) was conducted following the PRISMA statements. Search strategies were developed for main databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, COCHRANE, LILACS, and EBSCOhost) and Grey literature information sources. The GRADE tool was used to evaluate the quality of evidence. From a total of 908 articles, 10 (205 men and 147 women; mean age ranging from 18.0 to 25.7 years) were selected for meta-analysis. Moderate to high risk of bias (Rob) was observed. The most common methods for outcomes evaluation were the Nasometer (speech) and nasoendoscopy (VPF). Speech changed from normal to hypernasal, and VPF worsening were reported in most studies. Comparing maxillary advancement interventions (osteogenic distraction versus Le Fort I), no statistically significant differences were found regarding benefit on speech and VPF. In summary, the effect of MA on speech and VPF remains controversial in CLP patients. The RoB, inconsistencies, and imprecisions severely affected the overall quality of evidence. Further adequately delineated clinical studies are necessary to investigate the potential effect of MA interventions on speech and VPF in CLP patients.