Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32062667›Full record

SynthesisMedicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal2020

Patient morbidity after impacted third molar extraction with different flap designs. A systematic review and meta-analysis.

P Glera-Suárez, D Soto-Peñaloza, D Peñarrocha-Oltra, M Peñarrocha-Diago

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Imaging in Third Molar Surgery: A Clinical Update.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

4 authors.

P Glera-SuárezUniversitat de València Clínica Odontológica, Unidad de Cirugía Bucal Gascó Oliag 1, 46021. Valencia, Spain david.penarrocha@uv.es.
D Soto-Peñaloza
D Peñarrocha-Oltra
M Peñarrocha-Diago

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo review the literature on the effect of different surgical flaps upon patient morbidity (pain perception, trismus, swelling and osteitis) after impacted third molar extraction. MATERIAL AND

methodsAn electronic and complementary search of main databases and grey literature was performed up to January 2019 to retrieve randomized clinical trials. The Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool was used for methodological appraisal. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted of pain perception and trismus.

resultsFrom the initially 1314 screened studies, only 11 were included in the qualitative synthesis, and 5 in the meta-analysis. There were no statistically significant differences in pain between the envelope and triangular flap designs over time, except on the sixth postoperative day, when the envelope flap proved more painful. Regarding trismus, statistically significant differences were observed on the seventh postoperative day, with greater mouth opening in the envelope flap group than in the triangular flap group. There were no clear differences in swelling and osteitis among the flap designs.

conclusionsDespite its limitations, the present meta-analysis found no clear differences in patient morbidity between the different flap designs.

Indexed as

Molar, ThirdTooth, ImpactedEdemaHumansMandiblePostoperative ComplicationsPostoperative PainSurgical FlapsTooth ExtractionTrismus

Identifiers

PMID32062667
PMCPMC7103454

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.