ArticleOral and maxillofacial surgery2024
Bilateral sagittal split osteotomy with or without concomitant removal of third molars: a retrospective cohort study of related complications and bone healing.
Article in Oral and maxillofacial surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Prevalence of Osteosynthesis Hardware Removal Due to Surgical Site Infections Following Sagittal Split Osteotomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo carry out a comparative evaluation of the intra- and postoperative complications, and bone healing, following bilateral sagittal split osteotomy (BSSO) with or without concomitant removal of third molars. MATERIAL AND
methodsA retrospective analysis was performed of two cohorts subjected to BSSO with the intraoperative removal of third molars (test group) versus the removal of third molars at least 6 months prior to BSSO (control group), comprising at least 1 year of clinical and radiographic follow-up. Partially or completely erupted third molars were extracted immediately before completing the osteotomy, whereas impacted third molars were removed after the osteotomy had been performed. Hardware reinforcement was performed in bimaxillary cases where concomitant molar extraction impeded placement of the retromolar bicortical screw of the hybrid technique.
resultsA total of 80 surgical sites were included (40 in each group). Concomitant extraction of the molar represented a mean increase in surgery time of 3.7 min (p < 0.001). No additional complications occurred in the test group (p = 0.476). The gain in bone density was preserved in both groups (p = 0.002), and the increase was of the same magnitude in both (p = 0.342), despite the fact that the immediate and final postoperative bone densities were significantly higher in the control group (p = 0.020).
conclusionThe results obtained support concomitant molar extraction with BSSO as a feasible option.
Indexed as
Identifiers
36959345What 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.