OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of interventions for treating different types of post-extraction bleeding.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases: The Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 22 March 2016); The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library 2016, Issue 2); MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 22 March 2016); CINAHL via EBSCO (1937 to 22 March 2016). Due to the ongoing Cochrane project to search EMBASE and add retrieved clinical trials to CENTRAL, we searched only the last 11 months of EMBASE via OVID (1 May 2015 to 22 March 2016). We placed no further restrictions on the language or date of publication. We searched the US National Institutes of Health Trials Register (http://clinicaltrials.gov), and the WHO Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials (http://apps.who.int/trialsearch/default.aspx). We also checked the reference lists of excluded trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated any intervention for treating PEB, with male or female participants of any age, regardless of type of teeth (anterior or posterior, mandibular or maxillary). Trials could compare one type of intervention with another, with placebo, or with no treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three pairs of review authors independently screened search records. We obtained full papers for potentially relevant trials. If data had been extracted, we would have followed the methods described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions for the statistical analysis.
MAIN RESULTS: We did not find any randomised controlled trial suitable for inclusion in this review.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We were unable to identify any reports of randomised controlled trials that evaluated the effects of different interventions for the treatment of post-extraction bleeding. In view of the lack of reliable evidence on this topic, clinicians must use their clinical experience to determine the most appropriate means of treating this condition, depending on patient-related factors. There is a need for well designed and appropriately conducted clinical trials on this topic, which conform to the CONSORT statement (www.consort-statement.org/).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched the Pubmed, Medline, Embase and EBSCO databases for full-text, peer-reviewed journal publications from January 1965 to August 2020. Data extraction was done using preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
RESULTS: Our search yielded 45 case reports involving 48 EMTM teeth. The mean age of the patients was 46.3 years with an age range of 22-80 years. Thirty-two cases were seen in women as compared to 13 cases in men. The majority of the cases (42) were unilateral, with only three bilateral cases. Among the 48 EMTM teeth, 21 were seen in the condylar region followed by 13 in the ramus, seven in the sigmoid notch, three in the angle and two each in the coronoid process and the lower border of the mandible. Twenty-five EMTM teeth had histopathologically confirmed dentigerous cysts, eight teeth had chronic infection/inflammation/granulation tissue, two had radicular cysts, two had infected cysts, two teeth had normal follicular spaces, and associated lesions were not mentioned for nine teeth. The most common symptoms were swelling (33 teeth) and pain (29 teeth), and six teeth were asymptomatic. Surgical removal through intraoral approach was carried out for 27 teeth, while an extra-oral approach was adopted in 15 teeth, a spontaneous regression of the pericoronal radiolucency was noticed in one tooth, four teeth were not treated and choice of treatment was not mentioned for one tooth. Mild transient paraesthesia was frequently observed; however, serious post-surgical complications were not reported.
CONCLUSIONS: The present review found that EMTM can present with complex clinicopathological characteristics, with a majority of the cases being asymptomatic in the beginning and turning out to be symptomatic with lesions at later stages, requiring surgical intervention.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of interventions for treating different types of post-extraction bleeding.
SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 24 January 2018), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2017, Issue 12), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 24 January 2018), Embase Ovid (1 May 2015 to 24 January 2018) and CINAHL EBSCO (1937 to 24 January 2018). The US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. We searched the reference lists of relevant systematic reviews.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated any intervention for treating PEB, with male or female participants of any age, regardless of type of teeth (anterior or posterior, mandibular or maxillary). Trials could compare one type of intervention with another, with placebo, or with no treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three pairs of review authors independently screened search records. We obtained full papers for potentially relevant trials. If data had been extracted, we would have followed the methods described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions for the statistical analysis.
MAIN RESULTS: We did not find any randomised controlled trial suitable for inclusion in this review.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We were unable to identify any reports of randomised controlled trials that evaluated the effects of different interventions for the treatment of post-extraction bleeding. In view of the lack of reliable evidence on this topic, clinicians must use their clinical experience to determine the most appropriate means of treating this condition, depending on patient-related factors. There is a need for well designed and appropriately conducted clinical trials on this topic, which conform to the CONSORT statement (www.consort-statement.org/).
METHODS: A retrospective analysis of medical records and dental panoramic tomogram (DPT) of patients with a history of head and neck radiotherapy who underwent dental extraction between August 2005 to October 2019 was conducted.
RESULTS: Seventy-three patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. 16 (21.9%) had ORN post dental extraction and 389 teeth were extracted. 33 sockets (8.5%) developed ORN. Univariate analyses showed significant associations with ORN for the following factors: tooth type, tooth pathology, surgical procedure, primary closure, target volume, total dose, timing of extraction post radiotherapy, bony changes at extraction site and visibility of lower and upper cortical line of mandibular canal. Using multivariate analysis, the odds of developing an ORN from a surgical procedure was 6.50 (CI 1.37-30.91, p = 0.02). Dental extraction of more than 5 years after radiotherapy and invisible upper cortical line of mandibular canal on the DPT have the odds of 0.06 (CI 0.01-0.25, p