Treatment Options of Maxillofacial Fractures in Iran: A Comprehensive Systematic Review.

IF 0.9 Q3 SURGERY World Journal of Plastic Surgery Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.52547/wjps.12.2.20
Faeze Sharifi, Sahand Samieirad, Ricardo Grillo, Maria Da Graça Naclério-Homem, Erfan Bardideh, Ali Manafi, Majid Eshghpour, Touraj Vaezi, Reza Shakiba
{"title":"Treatment Options of Maxillofacial Fractures in Iran: A Comprehensive Systematic Review.","authors":"Faeze Sharifi, Sahand Samieirad, Ricardo Grillo, Maria Da Graça Naclério-Homem, Erfan Bardideh, Ali Manafi, Majid Eshghpour, Touraj Vaezi, Reza Shakiba","doi":"10.52547/wjps.12.2.20","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature on the treatment options of maxillofacial fractures in Iran, complementing a previous article regarding causes and the overall prevalence.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science (WS) and Google Scholar (GS) electronic databases was conducted to identify the relevant articles published up to January 2023. Studies reporting the treatment option of maxillofacial fractures in Iran were included in the analysis. MOOSE guidelines were adopted for the current systematic review. No data or language restriction were applied. Risk of bias across the articles was assessed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>This systematic review included 13 articles with a total of 19,147 treated patients for maxillofacial fractures. ORIF was the most common type of treatment, but complications occurred in approximately 5% of cases. Mandible fractures were not statistically more treated by ORIF than closed reduction or conservative treatment, and no type of treatment was considered statistically preferable depending on the anatomical region affected by Iranian maxillofacial surgeons. The included studies were considered to have a low risk of bias, but many were not clear in reporting cross-referenced data regarding the type of treatment, which could be considered a major flaw.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Overall, this study provides valuable insights into the types of treatment used for maxillofacial fractures by Iranian surgeons and highlights the importance of clear reporting of data in research articles.</p>","PeriodicalId":23736,"journal":{"name":"World Journal of Plastic Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10732295/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Journal of Plastic Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.52547/wjps.12.2.20","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature on the treatment options of maxillofacial fractures in Iran, complementing a previous article regarding causes and the overall prevalence.

Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science (WS) and Google Scholar (GS) electronic databases was conducted to identify the relevant articles published up to January 2023. Studies reporting the treatment option of maxillofacial fractures in Iran were included in the analysis. MOOSE guidelines were adopted for the current systematic review. No data or language restriction were applied. Risk of bias across the articles was assessed.

Results: This systematic review included 13 articles with a total of 19,147 treated patients for maxillofacial fractures. ORIF was the most common type of treatment, but complications occurred in approximately 5% of cases. Mandible fractures were not statistically more treated by ORIF than closed reduction or conservative treatment, and no type of treatment was considered statistically preferable depending on the anatomical region affected by Iranian maxillofacial surgeons. The included studies were considered to have a low risk of bias, but many were not clear in reporting cross-referenced data regarding the type of treatment, which could be considered a major flaw.

Conclusion: Overall, this study provides valuable insights into the types of treatment used for maxillofacial fractures by Iranian surgeons and highlights the importance of clear reporting of data in research articles.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
伊朗颌面部骨折的治疗方案:全面系统回顾
背景:本研究旨在系统回顾有关伊朗颌面部骨折治疗方案的文献:本研究旨在系统回顾有关伊朗颌面部骨折治疗方案的文献,对之前一篇有关骨折原因和总体发病率的文章进行补充:方法:对 PubMed、Cochrane Library、Web of Science (WS) 和 Google Scholar (GS) 电子数据库进行了系统检索,以确定截至 2023 年 1 月发表的相关文章。分析纳入了报告伊朗颌面部骨折治疗方案的研究。本系统综述采用 MOOSE 指南。没有数据或语言限制。对所有文章的偏倚风险进行了评估:本系统综述共纳入 13 篇文章,共治疗了 19,147 名颌面部骨折患者。有创人工关节置换术是最常见的治疗方式,但约有5%的病例出现了并发症。据统计,下颌骨骨折采用闭合复位术治疗的比例并不比采用保守治疗的比例高,伊朗颌面外科医生认为,根据受影响的解剖区域,没有哪种治疗方式在统计学上更受欢迎。纳入的研究被认为存在较低的偏倚风险,但许多研究在报告治疗类型的交叉参考数据时并不明确,这可能被认为是一个重大缺陷:总之,本研究为了解伊朗外科医生对颌面部骨折的治疗类型提供了宝贵的见解,并强调了在研究文章中清晰报告数据的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
11.10%
发文量
41
期刊最新文献
A Giant Nevus Sebaceous Lesion in an 18 Year-Old Male: A Case Report. Assessing the Utility of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Posters as Educational Aids in Dental Education for Undergraduate Students: Is it Useless or Helpful? Comparison of the Effect of Two Low to High Lateral Osteotomy Methods, Percutaneous and Internal On the Tear Trough and Scleral Show in Patients Undergoing Esthetic Open Rhinoplasty. Comparison the Effect of Conventional and Nanofat Injection Methods on Nasolabial Fold Lipofilling: A Case- Control Study. Satisfaction and Quality of Life in Patients Who Underwent Post Massive Weight Loss Body Contouring Procedures: A Tertiary Center Experience in Bahrain.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1