SynthesisBMC oral health2025
Condylar bone regeneration following temporomandibular joint disc repositioning surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
objectivesThis systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the impact of disc repositioning surgeries on condylar bone regeneration. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe study protocol adhered to the PRISMA 2020 checklist and Cochrane guidelines (CRD42024501867). The study included both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized studies of interventions (NRSIs) (both observational and clinical trials) that reported radiological outcomes of condylar bone regeneration after disc repositioning surgeries were included. The focus was on joints exhibiting new bone formation and changes in condylar height. A comprehensive search across six databases (Embase, MEDLINE, CENTRAL, PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus) was conducted to identify relevant studies up to February 2025. Additionally, reference lists of eligible articles were manually reviewed. The methodological quality were evaluated using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS). The risk-of-bias assessment of the included NRSIs was conducted using the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. Random-effect meta-analyses were performed using STATA software with the metaprop and metan commands.
resultsSixteen studies with a total of 1,457 patients met the inclusion criteria, including one RCT. Meta-analyses revealed that 89.3% (95% confidence interval (CI): 79.4%-96.5%) of TMJs demonstrated new condylar bone formation post-disc repositioning surgery. For patients under 21 years of age, this figure rose to 95.9% (95% CI: 91.1%-99.2%). On average, disc repositioning surgeries increased condylar height by 1.54 mm (95% CI: 1.18-1.89 mm), with a greater increase of 1.75 mm (95% CI: 1.41-2.10 mm) observed in patients under 21 years. Considerable heterogeneity was found in most meta-analyses.
conclusionsDisc repositioning surgeries appear to promote condylar bone regeneration, with more pronounced benefits observed in younger patients. However, the considerable heterogeneity among included studies and limited quality of current evidence necessitate cautious interpretation and call for future longitudinal studies with standardized protocols and long-term follow-up to confirm these preliminary results and establish more robust conclusions. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This systematic review and meta-analysis indicated that restoring the disc position might be beneficial for condylar bone regeneration.
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.