Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29680992›Full record

ArticleClinical oral investigations2019

Comparison of mucosal and mucoperiosteal wound cover for the treatment of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw lesions: a retrospective cohort study.

Nicola Nonnenmühlen, A Burnic, A Bartella, B Lethaus, F Gerhards, O Ristow, C Pautke, F Hölzle, T Steiner

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 29% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Nicola NonnenmühlenDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Aachen, Pauwelsstraße 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany. nicola.maria.nonnenmuehlen@rwth-aachen.de.
A BurnicDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Aachen, Pauwelsstraße 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany.
A BartellaDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Aachen, Pauwelsstraße 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany.
B LethausDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Aachen, Pauwelsstraße 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany.
F GerhardsDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Aachen, Pauwelsstraße 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany.
O RistowDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
C PautkeDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Munich, Lindwurmstr. 2a, 80336, Munich, Germany.
F HölzleDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Aachen, Pauwelsstraße 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany.
T SteinerDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Aachen, Pauwelsstraße 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany.
RWTH Aachen University · DEHeidelberg University · DELudwig-Maximilians-Universität München · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesActually, there is no detailed guidance on how to deal with wound closure after surgical removal of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) lesions. This study attempts to compare the difference in outcome between the mucosal and the mucoperiosteal flap closure after surgery. PATIENTS AND

methodsIn this retrospective monocentric cohort study, patients (n = 61; 35 female/26 male) suffering from MRONJ and requiring surgical therapy at the University of Aachen between 2013 and 2015 were included. Due to intra-institutional variances, one group was treated with the mucosal, the other group with the mucoperiosteal technique. The success rate, i.e., mucosal closure and no relapse at the point of follow-up, was evaluated and compared. All patients were clinically investigated for the postoperative follow-up during a special consultation appointment.

resultsThe success rates between the different techniques after 2 years follow-up were very similar. In the group of mucosal wound closure, 22 of 29 (75.86%) patients revealed mucosal integrity without signs of MRONJ. The rate in the mucoperiosteal wound closure group was almost identical (24 of 32 (75%)).

conclusionNo differences in the success rates between the two different techniques could be evaluated. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The results of this study suggest that the complete removal of the necrotic bone might have a higher impact on the success rates than the technique of the wound closure. Due to the fact that the mucoperiosteal wound closure technique offers a better overview of the extent of the MRONJ lesion, the authors advise to use this technique.

Indexed as

Wound Closure TechniquesAgedAged, 80 and overBisphosphonate-Associated Osteonecrosis of the JawFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMouth MucosaPeriosteumRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeWound HealingBisphosphonateMRONJOsteonecrosisRetrospective cohort studySurgical treatment

Identifiers

PMID29680992
OpenAlexW2802342654

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.