Does BRAF V600E mutation affect recurrence rate of ameloblastomas? Systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this systematic review with meta-analysis was to critically evaluate the available data on the association of the BRAF V600E mutation and recurrence rate of ameloblastomas. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This systematic review was registered in Prospero (CRD42020183645) and performed based on the PRISMA statement. A comprehensive search in PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus and Cochrane Library databases was performed in order to answer the question "Does BRAF V600E mutation affect recurrence rate of ameloblastomas?" Methodological quality and risk of bias of the selected studies were assessed with JBI Critical Appraise Tool. Meta-analysis of quantitative data was conducted with RevMan 5.3 and Jamovi 2.3. RESULTS: The initial search identified 302 articles, and 21 met the inclusion criteria. A total of 855 subjects with ameloblastoma were included in the analysis. The pooled measures for frequency of BRAF V600E mutation was 65.30% (95% CI: 0.56-0.75; p < .001; I2 = 90.85%; τ = 0.205; p < .001), and the pooled recurrence rate was 25.30% (95% CI: 0.19-0.31; p < .001; I2 = 79.44%; τ = 0.118; p < .001). No differences in recurrence rate were observed between the BRAF V600E and wild type BRAF ameloblastomas, with a pooled Odds Ratio of 0.93 (95% CI: 0.56-1.54; p = .78; I2 = 31%; p = .09). CONCLUSIONS: BRAF V600E mutation is a frequent event in ameloblastomas, but does not increase nor reduce its recurrence rate, and thus have a limited value in predicting its prognosis.

Does Maxillomandibular Fixation Affect Respiratory Function? A Systematic Review.

ABSTRACT: This systematic review was carried out to determine if maxillomandibular fixation, used in the treatment of maxillary fractures, interferes with respiratory function, and appraised studies that evaluated pulmonary function using spirometry on patients with and without maxillomandibular fixation. Searches were conducted on the following databases: Medline/Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, Scopus, and Scielo, in addition to a search of the grey literature and a manual search. Five studies were included in the qualitative analysis, but it was not possible to conduct a quantitative study due to the lack of data. Forced vital capacity, forced expiratory volume in the first second, the ratio of these values, and peak expiratory flow were the parameters studied. In all the studies included in this review, it was possible to observe the lowest respiratory parameter values during maxillomandibular fixation and, after removal, normal respiratory function was restored. Accordingly, it was possible to conclude that maxillo-mandibular fixation temporarily affects respiratory function, during use, but it is restored on removal, therefore, not precluding its use on healthy patients who have good nasal breathing prior to the procedure. However, in patients suffering from some form of respiratory limitation or pulmonary disease, and also mouth breathers, maxillomandibular fixation should not be used so as to avoid more severe respiratory complications, underlining the importance of preoperative pulmonary evaluation.

Does the Use of Articaine Increase the Risk of Hypesthesia in Lower Third Molar Surgery? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess the risk of hypesthesia with the use of articaine in comparison with other local anesthetics in lower third molar surgery, through a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library (CENTRAL), Web of Science, and SCOPUS databases were searched. Gray literature and manual searches were also performed. RESULTS: Altogether 342 articles were found; only 13 met the eligibility criteria. A total of 886 third molars were removed; 436 using articaine, 430 using other local anesthetics, and 20 using an anesthetic mixture. Altogether 5 cases of hypesthesia were found in the articaine group, with 4 temporary and 1 with no mention of nerve involved; there was no case of permanent confirmed hypesthesia. A total of 9 articles demonstrated a low risk of bias, and 4 articles showed some concern. The meta-analysis demonstrated a 3.96 relative risk for hypesthesia with the use of articaine compared with other local anesthetics, but this result was not statistically significant. The heterogeneity of the studies was low from a clinical, methodological, and statistical point of view. CONCLUSIONS: Thus, this systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that the use of articaine does not increase the risk of hypesthesia compared with other local anesthetics in lower third molar extraction, and when present, this complication is temporary.