In this study, we aimed to systematically review and critically appraise the available literature concerning the effectiveness of marsupialisation and decompression on the reduction of cystic jaw lesions. The `Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and MetaAnalysis' guidelines were followed and the study protocol was registered at the `International Prospective Register of SystematicReviews' (CRD42019116099). Six main databases were searched: Embase, LILACS, PubMed, Scopus, The Cochrane Library, and Web ofScience. Searches were complemented with three grey literature sources: Google Scholar, ProQuest, and Open Grey. Any reduction measures, compared with preoperative status or other procedures, were considered. Risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tool. Thirty-one studies were included, of which five were judged with low, 24 with moderate, and two with high risk ofbias. Considering surgical approach, 20 studies assessed the decompression and 11 the marsupialisation technique. Most studies consideredthese techniques as preliminary treatments, followed by enucleation. From 1088 lesions found, most were odontogenic keratocysts (33.8%), followed by unicystic ameloblastomas (21.0%), dentigerous cysts (20.6%), and radicular cysts (8.4%). Large lesions and younger individualsfrequently presented more favourable responses to treatment and anatomical location was not associated with lesion reduction overall. Theintervention duration generally ranged between one to two years. In conclusion, marsupialisation and decompression were mostly consideredas preliminary treatments, followed by enucleation. Lesion reduction was generally considered insufficient for these techniques to be used asdefinitive therapies, although benefits concerning the diminished invasiveness of the secondary surgery were often proposed. (c) 2021 The British Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Effectiveness of marsupialisation and decompression on the reduction of cystic jaw lesions: a systematic review
Lizio G.;
2021-01-01
Abstract
In this study, we aimed to systematically review and critically appraise the available literature concerning the effectiveness of marsupialisation and decompression on the reduction of cystic jaw lesions. The `Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and MetaAnalysis' guidelines were followed and the study protocol was registered at the `International Prospective Register of SystematicReviews' (CRD42019116099). Six main databases were searched: Embase, LILACS, PubMed, Scopus, The Cochrane Library, and Web ofScience. Searches were complemented with three grey literature sources: Google Scholar, ProQuest, and Open Grey. Any reduction measures, compared with preoperative status or other procedures, were considered. Risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tool. Thirty-one studies were included, of which five were judged with low, 24 with moderate, and two with high risk ofbias. Considering surgical approach, 20 studies assessed the decompression and 11 the marsupialisation technique. Most studies consideredthese techniques as preliminary treatments, followed by enucleation. From 1088 lesions found, most were odontogenic keratocysts (33.8%), followed by unicystic ameloblastomas (21.0%), dentigerous cysts (20.6%), and radicular cysts (8.4%). Large lesions and younger individualsfrequently presented more favourable responses to treatment and anatomical location was not associated with lesion reduction overall. Theintervention duration generally ranged between one to two years. In conclusion, marsupialisation and decompression were mostly consideredas preliminary treatments, followed by enucleation. Lesion reduction was generally considered insufficient for these techniques to be used asdefinitive therapies, although benefits concerning the diminished invasiveness of the secondary surgery were often proposed. (c) 2021 The British Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
| File | Dimensione | Formato | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
mars.pdf
Accesso riservato
Dimensione
3.87 MB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
3.87 MB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri Richiedi una copia |
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
