Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38954313›Full record

ReviewOral and maxillofacial surgery2024

Management and recurrence of the odontogenic keratocyst: an overview of systematic reviews.

Thayanne Oliveira de Freitas Gonçalves, Renata Matuck Roque Rangel, Guido Artemio Marañón-Vásquez, Larissa Soares-Silva, Michelle Agostini, Aline Corrêa Abrahão, Mário José Romañach, Lucianne Cople Maia

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review 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 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
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

8 authors.

Thayanne Oliveira de Freitas GonçalvesDepartment of Oral Diagnosis and Pathology, School of Dentistry, Universidade Federal Do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), R. Prof. Rodolpho Paulo Rocco, 325, Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. thayanneofg@yahoo.com.br.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5302-532X
Renata Matuck Roque RangelDepartment of Pediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Universidade Federal Do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9444-7687
Guido Artemio Marañón-VásquezDepartment of Pediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Universidade Federal Do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7029-0347
Larissa Soares-SilvaDepartment of Pediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Universidade Federal Do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0193-2144
Michelle AgostiniDepartment of Oral Diagnosis and Pathology, School of Dentistry, Universidade Federal Do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), R. Prof. Rodolpho Paulo Rocco, 325, Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3648-337X
Aline Corrêa AbrahãoDepartment of Oral Diagnosis and Pathology, School of Dentistry, Universidade Federal Do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), R. Prof. Rodolpho Paulo Rocco, 325, Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3397-3234
Mário José RomañachDepartment of Oral Diagnosis and Pathology, School of Dentistry, Universidade Federal Do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), R. Prof. Rodolpho Paulo Rocco, 325, Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7853-5916
Lucianne Cople MaiaDepartment of Pediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Universidade Federal Do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1026-9401

Funding

Rio de Janeiro State Research Foundation E-26/201.383/2022
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

MATERIALS AND

methodsAn extensive literature search among six eletronic databases and Grey Literature was used to identify systematic reviews (S) that could respond if: in individuals diagnosed with OKC (P), is there any influence of the treatment method (I/C) on the recurrence rate of the lesion (O)? After evaluating all titles and abstracts and then applying the eligibility criteria, the included studies were read in full, and data were extracted based on a standardized sheet ordered in the PICO sequence. The assessment of the quality of the systematic reviews included, was determined by AMSTAR2, and final synthesis were descriptively made based on the results and quality of the systematic reviews.

resultsFrom a total of 19 included systematic reviews, it was observed that the most used treatment for OKC was enucleation, followed by enucleation with adjuvant techniques and marsupialization. The mean percentage of recurrence was 16,2%, and the highest OKC recurrence rate was 43.2% after simple enucleation. The use of adjuvant techniques promoted reductions in OKC recurrence rates. The overall methodological quality of systematic reviews was critically low, and this parameter demonstrate the need for more studies to facilitate the choose of the treatment.

conclusionDespite being the most used treatment, simple enucleation is related to the highest rate of recurrence, except when performed after marsupialization/decompression. In addition, the use of adjuvant techniques has a strong impact on reducing the likelihood of recurrence. However, these findings are not conclusive because of the critically low quality of the systematic reviews.

Indexed as

Odontogenic CystsRecurrenceHumansOdontogenic keratocystRecurrence ratesSurgerySystematic reviewTreatment

Identifiers

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.