SynthesisPloS one2023
Incidence of lingual nerve damage following surgical extraction of mandibular third molars with lingual flap retraction: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- A prospective randomized study on the efficacy of real-time dynamic navigation in deep horizontal mandibular third molar extractions.BMC oral health · 2024Trial
- Early Diagnosis of Iatrogenic Post-Traumatic Trigeminal Neuropathies: From Clinical Gaps to Medico-Legal Implications-A Comprehensive Structured Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Post-Dental and Alveolar Nerve-Related Trigeminal Pain in Patients Referred with Trigeminal Neuralgia Terminology: A Retrospective Tertiary-Center Diagnostic Pathway Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Prevalence and Risk Factors of Post-Extraction Complications in a Western Australian Tertiary Dental Hospital: A Retrospective Cross-Sectional Study.Australian dental journal · 2025Article
- Neurosensory outcomes following permanent lingual nerve injury in surgical removal of mandibular third molars: a systematic review and meta-analysis.The Saudi dental journal · 2025Review
- Can magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) reduce lingual nerve injuries during mandibular third molar surgery? A scoping review.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Lingual nerve injuries: recognized complications or preventable errors?Frontiers in oral health · 2025Article
- Risk factors for impacted lower third molar root perforation through the undercut-shaped lingual plate: preoperative insights from panoramic radiography.Odontology · 2024Article
- Establishing universal sectioning depth and angle for surgical coronectomy of impacted mandibular third molars: an imaging-based study.Frontiers in oral health · 2024Article
- Prevalence and Factors Influencing Post-Operative Complications following Tooth Extraction: A Narrative Review.International journal of dentistry · 2024Review
- Neurosensory Deficits of the Mandibular Nerve Following Extraction of Impacted Lower Third Molars-A Retrospective Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- The effect of individual drilling sleeves on the precision of coronectomy tooth sections. An in vitro 3D-printed jaw model experiment.Clinical oral investigations · 2023Article
- Mapping out the surgical anatomy of the lingual nerve: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to examine more recent data to determine the extent of lingual nerve injury (LNI) following the surgical extraction of mandibular third molars (M3M). A systematic search of three databases [PubMed, Web of Science and OVID] was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The inclusion criteria encompassed studies on patients who underwent surgical M3M extraction using the buccal approach without lingual flap retraction (BA-), buccal approach with lingual flap retraction (BA+), and lingual split technique (LS). The outcome measures expressed in LNI count were converted to risk ratios (RR). Twenty-seven studies were included in the systematic review, nine were eligible for meta-analysis. Combined RR for LNI (BA+ versus BA-) was 4.80 [95% Confidence Interval:3.28-7.02; P<0.00001]. The prevalence of permanent LNI following BA-, BA+ and LS (mean%±SD%) was 0.18±0.38, 0.07±0.21, and 0.28±0.48 respectively. This study concluded that there was an increased risk of temporary LNI following M3M surgical extractions using BA+ and LS. There was insufficient evidence to determine whether there is a significant advantage of BA+ or LS in reducing permanent LNI risk. Operators should use lingual retraction with caution due to the increased temporary LNI risk.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.