植骨后钛网暴露:治疗方法-系统回顾。

IF 0.8 Q4 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE Craniomaxillofacial Trauma & Reconstruction Pub Date : 2022-12-01 Epub Date: 2021-09-14 DOI:10.1177/19433875211046114
Giovanni Cunha, Pedro Henrique de Azambuja Carvalho, Lílian Caldas Quirino, Luiz Henrique Soares Torres, Valfrido Antônio Pereira Filho, Mario Francisco Real Gabrielli, Marisa Aparecida Cabrini Gabrielli
{"title":"植骨后钛网暴露:治疗方法-系统回顾。","authors":"Giovanni Cunha, Pedro Henrique de Azambuja Carvalho, Lílian Caldas Quirino, Luiz Henrique Soares Torres, Valfrido Antônio Pereira Filho, Mario Francisco Real Gabrielli, Marisa Aparecida Cabrini Gabrielli","doi":"10.1177/19433875211046114","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Study design: </strong>A systematic review according to PRISMA statement has been designed to answer the preliminary question: \"<i>In titanium mesh exposures, is there a treatment alternative which leads to an increased graft maintenance?</i>\" and fill the PICO assessment out.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To review studies published in the past 20 years (1999-2019) in which mesh exposure has occurred, detecting the suitable approaches to treat exposure allowing the graft maintenance.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Initial search on PUBMED, SCOPUS, and COCHRANE databases resulted in 777 articles, and hand-searching identified 6 articles. After removing duplicates and unrelated articles, eligibility criteria were applied, and 31 studies were selected (randomized clinical trials, retrospective/prospective clinical trials, and case series).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 677 surgical sites and 225 cases of mesh exposure were identified. Eleven treatments have been identified. Chlorhexidine was the primary approach in 46% of cases, followed by oral hygiene instructions and follow-up with 22.5% of occurrences. In 21% of clinical situations, titanium mesh removal was the treatment of choice, associated with other measures (i.e., antibiotic prescription). There seems to be a consensus in cases of infection. When this complication was associated with tissue dehiscence, the primary treatment was mesh removal. The same does not occur when the site needs to be cleaned for long-term periods.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In 2 decades of use of titanium meshes, the available treatments do not seem to have evolved, and there is not enough data to establish a guideline.</p>","PeriodicalId":46447,"journal":{"name":"Craniomaxillofacial Trauma & Reconstruction","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9647381/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Titanium Mesh Exposure After Bone Grafting: Treatment Approaches-A Systematic Review.\",\"authors\":\"Giovanni Cunha, Pedro Henrique de Azambuja Carvalho, Lílian Caldas Quirino, Luiz Henrique Soares Torres, Valfrido Antônio Pereira Filho, Mario Francisco Real Gabrielli, Marisa Aparecida Cabrini Gabrielli\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/19433875211046114\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Study design: </strong>A systematic review according to PRISMA statement has been designed to answer the preliminary question: \\\"<i>In titanium mesh exposures, is there a treatment alternative which leads to an increased graft maintenance?</i>\\\" and fill the PICO assessment out.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To review studies published in the past 20 years (1999-2019) in which mesh exposure has occurred, detecting the suitable approaches to treat exposure allowing the graft maintenance.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Initial search on PUBMED, SCOPUS, and COCHRANE databases resulted in 777 articles, and hand-searching identified 6 articles. After removing duplicates and unrelated articles, eligibility criteria were applied, and 31 studies were selected (randomized clinical trials, retrospective/prospective clinical trials, and case series).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 677 surgical sites and 225 cases of mesh exposure were identified. Eleven treatments have been identified. Chlorhexidine was the primary approach in 46% of cases, followed by oral hygiene instructions and follow-up with 22.5% of occurrences. In 21% of clinical situations, titanium mesh removal was the treatment of choice, associated with other measures (i.e., antibiotic prescription). There seems to be a consensus in cases of infection. When this complication was associated with tissue dehiscence, the primary treatment was mesh removal. The same does not occur when the site needs to be cleaned for long-term periods.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In 2 decades of use of titanium meshes, the available treatments do not seem to have evolved, and there is not enough data to establish a guideline.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46447,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Craniomaxillofacial Trauma & Reconstruction\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9647381/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Craniomaxillofacial Trauma & Reconstruction\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/19433875211046114\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/9/14 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Craniomaxillofacial Trauma & Reconstruction","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/19433875211046114","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/9/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

研究设计:根据PRISMA声明进行系统回顾,旨在回答初步问题:“在钛网暴露中,是否存在导致移植物维持增加的治疗方案?”并填写PICO评估。目的:回顾过去20年(1999-2019)发表的关于补片暴露的研究,找出合适的方法来治疗暴露,使移植物得以维持。方法:在PUBMED、SCOPUS和COCHRANE数据库中进行初步检索,共检索到777篇文章,手工检索出6篇。在删除重复和不相关的文章后,应用资格标准,选择31项研究(随机临床试验、回顾性/前瞻性临床试验和病例系列)。结果:共发现手术部位677个,补片外露225例。已经确定了11种治疗方法。46%的病例以氯己定为主,其次是口腔卫生指导和随访,占22.5%。在21%的临床情况下,钛网去除是治疗的选择,与其他措施(即抗生素处方)相关。在感染病例中似乎达成了共识。当这种并发症与组织开裂相关时,主要的治疗方法是去除补片。当场地需要长期清洁时,就不会发生同样的情况。结论:在钛网使用的20年中,可用的治疗方法似乎没有发生变化,并且没有足够的数据来建立指南。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Titanium Mesh Exposure After Bone Grafting: Treatment Approaches-A Systematic Review.

Study design: A systematic review according to PRISMA statement has been designed to answer the preliminary question: "In titanium mesh exposures, is there a treatment alternative which leads to an increased graft maintenance?" and fill the PICO assessment out.

Objective: To review studies published in the past 20 years (1999-2019) in which mesh exposure has occurred, detecting the suitable approaches to treat exposure allowing the graft maintenance.

Methods: Initial search on PUBMED, SCOPUS, and COCHRANE databases resulted in 777 articles, and hand-searching identified 6 articles. After removing duplicates and unrelated articles, eligibility criteria were applied, and 31 studies were selected (randomized clinical trials, retrospective/prospective clinical trials, and case series).

Results: A total of 677 surgical sites and 225 cases of mesh exposure were identified. Eleven treatments have been identified. Chlorhexidine was the primary approach in 46% of cases, followed by oral hygiene instructions and follow-up with 22.5% of occurrences. In 21% of clinical situations, titanium mesh removal was the treatment of choice, associated with other measures (i.e., antibiotic prescription). There seems to be a consensus in cases of infection. When this complication was associated with tissue dehiscence, the primary treatment was mesh removal. The same does not occur when the site needs to be cleaned for long-term periods.

Conclusion: In 2 decades of use of titanium meshes, the available treatments do not seem to have evolved, and there is not enough data to establish a guideline.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Craniomaxillofacial Trauma & Reconstruction
Craniomaxillofacial Trauma & Reconstruction DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
39
期刊最新文献
Anatomical Landmarks and Branching Patterns of the Greater Auricular Nerve. Revision Surgery With Refixation After Mandibular Fractures. A Single Center Experience: A Retrospective Study Over 10-Years Period on Mandible Fractures. Comparing Current Practice Habits for Treatment of Subcondylar Fracture Among Craniomaxillofacial Surgeons. Patterns of Midface and Mandible Fractures in a Government Hospital.
×
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