Multidisciplinary Treatment in Patients with Craniofacial, Neurocognitive, and Neuromuscular Disorders with Obstructive Sleep Apnea: A Systematic Review of the Literature.

Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a respiratory disorder that has a high prevalence in patients with craniofacial, neurocognitive, and neuromuscular disorders. Currently, the treatments for this population are diverse and depend on the individual conditions of the patient and the severity of the case. However, there are no multidisciplinary dental treatment guidelines. The aim of the present study was to determine the multidisciplinary dental treatment alternatives in patients with craniofacial, neurocognitive, and neuromuscular disorders with a diagnosis of OSA through evidence-based medicine. A systematic review of the literature has been performed by searching scientific articles in the PubMed, Cochrane, Ovid, ScienceDirect and Scopus databases, through controlled and uncontrolled language. Articles were classified according to the level of evidence and grades of recommendation through the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network. A total of 19,439 references were identified, of which 15 articles met the predetermined requirements to be included in the investigation. The articles included for this systematic review showed that mandibular distraction osteogenesis and adenotonsilectomy are the first-choice therapies for craniofacial and neurocognitive disorders. However, for neuromuscular disorders, the findings reported were not enough to provide information about surgical or nonsurgical alternatives. Despite the reported high frequency of OSA in those children with craniofacial, neurocognitive, and neuromuscular disorders, the evidence on the surgical and nonsurgical therapeutic success for OSA in these patients is scarce. It is necessary to perform future studies to investigate successful therapies for OSA in children. [Pediatr Ann. 2024;53(2):e62-e69.].

Efficacy of treatment of class II furcation lesions using membrane associated with bone grafting in mandibular molars compared to membrane only: a systematic review and meta-analysis / Eficacia del tratamiento de lesiones de furca grado II utilizando membrana asociada con injerto óseo en molares mandibulares en comparación con solamente membrana: revisión sistemática y metanálisis

Objective: The objective of the present systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare treatment with membrane associated with bone grafting and treatment exclusively with membrane in the approach of Class II furcation defects in mandibular molars. Materials and Methods: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement was followed. Searches were conducted in five databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Ovid, and Lilacs), in Septem-ber 2021, without restriction regarding publication year or language. Studies comparing membranes associated with bone grafting and membranes exclusively in the treatment of Class II furcation lesions were included. Cross-sectional, case-control studies, and reviews were excluded. Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment (MINORS) were performed by two review authors. The certainty of the evidence (GRADE) was evaluated and meta-analysis was performed. Mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were provided. Results: Four hundred eighty-six references were iden-tified and four studies were included. Greater reduction in probing depth [MD = 0.32 (CI = 0.09, 0.56)] and greater clinical attachment level gain [MD = 0.41 (CI = 0.24, 0.57)] were observed when membrane and bone grafting were used. The risk of bias of included studies was low. Conclusions: This present systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated that treatment of Class II furcation defects in mandibular molars using membrane and bone grafing is significantly more efficacious than treatment with the exclusive use of membrane.

Objetivo: El objetivo de la presente revisión sistemática y metanálisis fue comparar el tratamiento con membrana asociado a injerto óseo y el tratamiento exclusivamente con membrana en el abordaje de lesiones de furca grado II en molares mandibulares. Materiales y Métodos: Se siguió la declaración de elementos de informe preferidos para revisiones sistemáticas y metanálisis (PRISMA). Las búsquedas se realizaron en cinco bases de datos (PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Ovid y Lilacs), en septiembre de 2021, sin restricción de año de publicación o idioma. Se incluyeron estudios que compararon membranas asociadas con injertos óseos y membranas exclusivamente en el tratamiento de lesiones de furca de grado II. Se excluyeron los estudios transversales, de casos y controles y las revisiones. Dos revisores realizaron la selección de estudios, la extracción de datos y la evaluación del riesgo de sesgo (MINORS). Se evaluó la certeza de la evidencia (GRADE) y se realizó un metanálisis. Se proporcionaron la diferencia de medias (DM) y el intervalo de confianza (IC) del 95%. Resultados: Se identificaron 486 referencias y se incluyeron cuatro estudios. Se observó una mayor reducción en la profundidad de sondaje [DM = 0,32 (IC = 0,09, 0,56)] y una mayor ganancia en el nivel de inserción clínica [DM = 0,41 (IC= 0,24, 0,57)] cuando se utilizaron injertos de membrana y hueso. El riesgo de sesgo de los estudios incluidos fue bajo. Conclusión: La presente revisión sistemática y metanálisis demostró que el tratamiento de los defectos de furca de grado II en molares mandibulares utilizando membrana e injertos de hueso es significativamente más eficaz que el tratamiento con el uso exclusivo de membrana.

Dossier temático revisiones sistemáticas de la literatura en odontología / Thematic dossier systematic reviews of literature in dentistry

La producción científica mundial en odontología crece anualmente de forma exponencial. Los grupos de investigación se enfocan en una gran variedad de áreas y problemas, algunos más populares que otros, muchas veces buscando respuestas a preguntas similares de investigación con metodologías similares y otras veces empleando metodologías diferentes. Sin embargo, la evidencia resultante no es necesariamente homogénea, puede ser contradictoria o menos rigurosa. Esto genera la oportunidad de investigar la evidencia científica de mayor fortaleza, lo cual se puede hacer a través de revisiones descriptivas o análisis estadísticos sofisticados de las publicaciones existentes. Las primeras tienen comúnmente la forma de revisiones sistemáticas de la literatura y los segundos son metanálisis. Las revisiones sistemáticas, como estudios integrativos o secundarios, son un paso adelante en el análisis de la evidencia primaria (trabajos terminados y publicados) para responder a preguntas específicas y posiblemente generar nuevas hipótesis de trabajo.