Efficacy and morbidity of biodegradable versus titanium osteosyntheses in orthognathic surgery:A systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

Titanium osteosynthesis is currently the gold standard in orthognathic surgery. Use of biodegradable osteosyntheses avoids removal of plates/screws in a second operation. This systematic review aimed to assess the efficacy and morbidity of biodegradable vs. titanium osteosyntheses in orthognathic surgery (PROSPERO CRD42018086477). Patients with syndromic disorder(s) and/or cleft lip/palate were excluded. Randomised, prospective and retrospective controlled studies were searched for in nine databases (February 2021). The time periods perioperative, short‐term, intermediate, long‐term, and overall follow‐up were studied. Meta‐analyses were performed using random‐effects models. A total of 9073 records was assessed, of which 33 were included, comprising 2551 patients. Seven RCTs had ‘some concerns’ while another seven RCTs had ‘high’ risk of bias (Cochrane‐RoB2). No differences in malunion (qualitative analyses), mobility of bone segments [RR 1.37 (0.47; 3.99)], and malocclusion [RR 0.93 (0.39; 2.26)] were found. The operative time was longer in the biodegradable group [SMD 0.50 (0.09; 0.91)]. Symptomatic plate/screw removal was comparable among both groups [RR 1.29 (0.68; 2.44)]. Skeletal stability was similar in most types of surgery. Biodegradable osteosyntheses is a valid alternative to titanium osteosyntheses for orthognathic surgery, but with longer operation times. Since the quality of evidence varied from very low to moderate, high‐quality research is necessary to elucidate the potential of biodegradable osteosyntheses

Reliability and accuracy of the torque applied to osteosynthesis screws by maxillofacial surgeons and residents

Applying the right torque to osteosynthesis screws is important for undisturbed bone healing. This study aimed to compare test-retest and intra-individual reliabilities of the torque applied to 1.5 mm and 2.0 mm osteosynthesis screws by residents and oral and maxillofacial surgeons (OMF-surgeons), to define the reference torque intervals, and to compare reference torque interval compliances. Five experienced OMF-surgeons and 20 residents, 5 of each 4 residency years, were included. Each participant inserted six 1.5 x 4 mm and six 2.0 x 6 mm screws into a preclinical model at two test moments 2 weeks apart (T1 and T2). Participants were blinded for the applied torque. Descriptive statistics, reference intervals, and intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated. The OMF-surgeons complied more to the reference intervals (1.5 mm screws: 95% and 2.0 mm screws: 100%) than the residents (82% and 90%, respectively; P = 0.009 and P = 0.007) with the ICCs ranging between 0.85-0.95 and 0.45-0.97, respectively. The residents' accuracy and reliability were inadequate regarding the 1.5 mm screws but both measures improved at T2 for both screw types compared to T1, indicating a learning effect. Training residents and/or verifying the applied torque by experienced OMF-surgeons remains necessary to achieve high accuracy and reliability, particularly for 1.5 mm screws

Comparison of the mechanical properties of biodegradable and titanium osteosynthesis systems used in oral and maxillofacial surgery

To guide the selection of osteosynthesis systems, this study compared the mechanical properties of biodegradable and titanium osteosynthesis systems. SonicPins Rx and xG were subjected to pull-out tests. Additionally, 15 biodegradable (Inion CPS 2.0 and 2.5 mm; LactoSorb 2.0 mm; Macropore 2.0 mm; Polymax 2.0 mm; BioSorb FX 2.0 mm; ResorbX 2.1 mm; Osteotrans-MX 2.0 mm with plate thicknesses 1.0 and 1.4 mm; SonicWeld Rxplate/Rxpins, xGplate/Rxpins and xGplate/xGpins 2.1 mm without and with tapping the burr hole) and six titanium (CrossDrive (2006), CrossDrive (2018), MaxDrive; all 1.5 and 2.0 mm) straight, four-hole osteosynthesis systems were evaluated. All systems were subjected to tensile, bending and torsion tests. Pull-out loads of the SonicPins were comparable (P = 0.423). Titanium systems’ tensile loads were higher than biodegradable systems (P < 0.001). CrossDrive (2018) and MaxDrive systems’ tensile and torsional stiffness were lower, accompanied with higher ductility, than corresponding CrossDrive (2006) systems (P < 0.001). Bending stiffness of 1.5 mm titanium systems was comparable to, and of the 2.0 mm systems higher than, all biodegradable systems (P < 0.001). Regarding biodegradable systems, Inion CPS 2.5 mm had highest tensile load and torsional stiffness, SonicWeld 2.1 mm highest tensile stiffness, and BioSorbFX 2.0 mm highest bending stiffness (P < 0.001). On the basis of the results of this study, the CrossDrive (2018) and MaxDrive 1.5 mm titanium systems are recommended for midface fractures (e.g., zygomatic or maxillary fractures) and osteotomies (e.g., Le Fort I osteotomy), and the CrossDrive (2018) and MaxDrive 2.0 mm titanium systems for mandibular fractures and osteotomies when a titanium osteosynthesis system is used. When there is an indication for a biodegradable osteosynthesis system, the SonicWeld 2.1 mm or BioSorbFX 2.0 mm are recommended for midface fractures and osteotomies, and the Inion CPS 2.5 mm biodegradable system for mandibular osteotomies and non-load bearing mandibular fractures, especially when high torsional forces are expected (e.g., mandibular symphysis fractures)

Biocompatibility and degradation comparisons of four biodegradable copolymeric osteosynthesis systems used in maxillofacial surgery:A goat model with four years follow-up

Applying biodegradable osteosyntheses avoids the disadvantages of titanium osteosyntheses. However, foreign-body reactions remain a major concern and evidence of complete resorption is lacking. This study compared the physico-chemical properties, histological response and radiographs of four copolymeric biodegradable osteosynthesis systems in a goat model with 48-months follow-up. The systems were implanted subperiosteally in both tibia and radius of 12 Dutch White goats. The BioSorb FX [poly(70LLA-co-30DLLA)], Inion CPS [poly([70-78.5]LLA-co-[16-24]DLLA-co-4TMC)], SonicWeld Rx [poly(DLLA)], LactoSorb [poly(82LLA-co-18GA)] systems and a negative control were randomly implanted in each extremity. Samples were assessed at 6-, 12-, 18-, 24-, 36-, and 48-month follow-up. Surface topography was performed using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Differential scanning calorimetry and gel permeation chromatography were performed on initial and explanted samples. Histological sections were systematically assessed by two blinded researchers using (polarized) light microscopy, SEM and energy-dispersive X-ray analysis. The SonicWeld Rx system was amorphous while the others were semi-crystalline. Foreign-body reactions were not observed during the complete follow-up. The SonicWeld Rx and LactoSorb systems reached bone percentages of negative controls after 18 months while the BioSorb Fx and Inion CPS systems reached these levels after 36 months. The SonicWeld Rx system showed the most predictable degradation profile. All the biodegradable systems were safe to use and well-tolerated (i.e., complete implant replacement by bone, no clinical or histological foreign body reactions, no [sterile] abscess formation, no re-interventions needed), but nanoscale residual polymeric fragments were observed at every system's assessment

A new tool to assess Clinical Diversity In Meta‐analyses (CDIM) of interventions

OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate Clinical Diversity In Meta-analyses (CDIM), a new tool for assessing clinical diversity between trials in meta-analyses of interventions.STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: The development of CDIM was based on consensus work informed by empirical literature and expertise. We drafted the CDIM tool, refined it, and validated CDIM for interrater scale reliability and agreement in three groups.RESULTS: CDIM measures clinical diversity on a scale that includes four domains with 11 items overall: setting (time of conduct/country development status/units type); population (age, sex, patient inclusion criteria/baseline disease severity, comorbidities); interventions (intervention intensity/strength/duration of intervention, timing, control intervention, cointerventions); and outcome (definition of outcome, timing of outcome assessment). The CDIM is completed in two steps: first two authors independently assess clinical diversity in the four domains. Second, after agreeing upon scores of individual items a consensus score is achieved. Interrater scale reliability and agreement ranged from moderate to almost perfect depending on the type of raters.CONCLUSION: CDIM is the first tool developed for assessing clinical diversity in meta-analyses of interventions. We found CDIM to be a reliable tool for assessing clinical diversity among trials in meta-analysis.</p

Intra-Articular Injection of Adipose-Derived Stromal Vascular Fraction in Osteoarthritic Temporomandibular Joints: Study Design of a Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

Introduction: Temporomandibular joint (TMJ) osteoarthritis is a degenerative disease of the TMJ. It is characterized by progressive degradation of the extracellular matrix components of articular cartilage, with secondary inflammatory components leading to pain in the temporomandibular region and reduced mouth opening. Current treatments do not halt disease progression, hence the need for new therapies to reduce inflammation and, consequently, improve symptoms. The aim of our randomized controlled clinical trial protocol is to investigate the efficacy of adjuvant intra-articular injections of autologous tissue-like stromal vascular fraction (tSVF), compared to arthrocentesis alone, in reducing pain and improving mouth opening in TMJ osteoarthritis patients. Materials and Methods: The primary endpoint analysis will consist of the visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain. The secondary endpoint analyses will include maximal interincisal mouth opening measurements; assessment of oral health and mandibular function based on the oral health impact profile (OHIP) questionnaire and mandibular functional impairment questionnaire (MFIQ); complications during the follow up; synovial cytokine analysis at baseline and after 26 weeks; and nucleated cells and tSVF (immuno)histochemistry analyses of the intervention group. Discussion: Our randomized clinical trial protocol will be applied to evaluate the efficacy of a new promising tSVF injection therapy for TMJ osteoarthritis. The safety of intra-articular injections of tSVF has been proven for knee osteoarthritis. However, since a tSVF injection is considered a heterologous application of cell therapy, the regulatory requirements are strict, which makes medical ethical approval challenging

A new tool to assess Clinical Diversity In Meta‐analyses (CDIM) of interventions

Objective: To develop and validate Clinical Diversity In Meta-analyses (CDIM), a new tool for assessing clinical diversity between trials in meta-analyses of interventions. Study design and setting: The development of CDIM was based on consensus work informed by empirical literature and expertise. We drafted the CDIM tool, refined it, and validated CDIM for interrater scale reliability and agreement in three groups. Results: CDIM measures clinical diversity on a scale that includes four domains with 11 items overall: setting (time of conduct/country development status/units type); population (age; sex; patient inclusion criteria/baseline disease severity, comorbidities); interventions (intervention intensity/strength/duration of intervention; timing; control intervention; cointerventions);and outcome (definition of outcome; timing of outcome assessment). The CDIM is completed in two steps: first two authors independently assess clinical diversity in the four domains. Second, after agreeing upon scores of individual items a consensus score is achieved. Interrater scale reliability and agreement ranged from moderate to almost perfect depending on the type of raters. Conclusion: CDIM is the first tool developed for assessing clinical diversity in meta-analyses of interventions. We found CDIM to be a reliable tool for assessing clinical diversity among trials in meta-analysis

A new tool to assess Clinical Diversity In Meta-analyses (CDIM) of interventions

OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate Clinical Diversity In Meta-analyses (CDIM), a new tool for assessing clinical diversity between trials in meta-analyses of interventions. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: The development of CDIM was based on consensus work informed by empirical literature and expertise. We drafted the CDIM tool, refined it, and validated CDIM for interrater scale reliability and agreement in three groups. RESULTS: CDIM measures clinical diversity on a scale that includes four domains with 11 items overall: setting (time of conduct/country development status/units type); population (age, sex, patient inclusion criteria/baseline disease severity, comorbidities); interventions (intervention intensity/strength/duration of intervention, timing, control intervention, cointerventions); and outcome (definition of outcome, timing of outcome assessment). The CDIM is completed in two steps: first two authors independently assess clinical diversity in the four domains. Second, after agreeing upon scores of individual items a consensus score is achieved. Interrater scale reliability and agreement ranged from moderate to almost perfect depending on the type of raters. CONCLUSION: CDIM is the first tool developed for assessing clinical diversity in meta-analyses of interventions. We found CDIM to be a reliable tool for assessing clinical diversity among trials in meta-analysis