Benefits of Coronectomy in Lower Third Molar Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to measure and compare coronectomy versus extraction in patients at increased risk for inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) injuries associated with third molar removal in terms of IAN injury and other complications. METHODS: The review adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses checklist. We conducted a comprehensive literature search across six databases and the gray literature from July 15 to August 01, 2022. We employed Rayyan software to identify and remove duplicate articles to ensure data integrity. Our research followed the strategy patient (P), intervention (I), comparison (C), outcome (O), and study (S): (P) patients needing lower third molar surgery at higher risk of IAN injury; (I) surgery options, coronectomy or complete extraction; (C) comparisons included reduced risks of nerve injuries, postoperative complications (pain, infection, alveolitis), and increased risks of reoperation, root migration, and extraction; (O) desired outcomes were preventing nerve injuries and reducing other surgical complications; and (S) observational study designs (cohort, case-control). Excluded from consideration were studies involving teeth other than lower third molars, as well as reviews, letters, conference summaries, and personal opinions. To gauge the certainty of evidence, we employed the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation instrument, selecting the most current papers with the highest levels of evidence for inclusion. The primary outcome variable of our study centered on evaluating the incidence of IAN injury, and secondly, the lingual nerve (LN) injury, the postoperative pain, infection, localized alveolitis, the necessity for surgical reintervention, root migration, and extraction. These assessments were carried out with respect to their chosen operative technique for managing third molars, either coronectomy or extraction, as predictor variables. We also considered covariates such as age, gender, and the presence of systemic diseases in our analysis to account for potential confounding factors. The pooled data underwent rigorous analysis utilizing an inverse variance method with both random and fixed effect models by the "metabin" function in the R program's meta-package. Additionally, we assessed the risk of bias in the selected studies by utilizing the Joanna Briggs Institute's Critical Appraisal Checklist for Studies Reporting Prevalence Data and the Critical Appraisal Checklist for Case Reports. RESULTS: Of the 1,017 articles found, after applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 42 were included in this study (29 cohort and 13 case-control studies), including 3,095 patients from 18 countries. The meta-analysis showed that coronectomy reduced the risk of IAN injury [OR (Odds Ratio): 0.14; 95% CI (confidence intervals): 0.06-0.30; I2 (inconsistency index) = 0%; P = .0001], postoperative pain (OR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.33-2.86; I2 = 81%; P = .01), and alveolitis (OR: 0.38; 95% CI: 0.13-1.09; I2 = 32.2%; P = .01) when compared to complete tooth extraction. However, it also highlighted a greater risk of reintervention (OR: 5.38; 95% CI: 1.14-25.28; I2 = 0.0%; P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: This study has demonstrated that coronectomy is associated with a decreased risk for IAN injury and decreased pain and localized alveolitis when compared to complete tooth extraction. However, it is essential to acknowledge the higher likelihood of requiring reintervention with coronectomy. Therefore, clinicians should carefully consider the advantages and potential drawbacks of both techniques and tailor their choices to the unique clinical circumstances of each patient.