Subperiosteal prepared (SPP) wound closure after tooth extraction vs Epiperiosteal prepared (EPP) wound closure after tooth extraction: MRONJ after tooth extraction (incidence proportion)
- Population
- People on antiresorptive treatment undergoing tooth extraction (at risk of MRONJ)
- Intervention
- Subperiosteal prepared (SPP) wound closure after tooth extraction
- Comparison
- Epiperiosteal prepared (EPP) wound closure after tooth extraction
- Outcome
- MRONJ after tooth extraction (incidence proportion)
Subperiosteal prepared (SPP) wound closure after tooth extraction showed no clear difference in MRONJ after tooth extraction (incidence proportion) compared with epiperiosteal prepared (EPP) wound closure after tooth extraction (low certainty).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Subperiosteal prepared (SPP) wound closure after tooth extraction vs Epiperiosteal prepared (EPP) wound closure after tooth extraction MRONJ after tooth extraction (incidence proportion) · People on antiresorptive therapy for cancer or osteoporosis undergoing dental extractions (at risk of MRONJ) · 6 months Subperiosteal prepared (SPP) wound closure after tooth extraction showed no clear difference in MRONJ after tooth extraction (incidence proportion) compared with epiperiosteal prepared (EPP) wound closure after tooth extraction (low certainty). Interventions for managing medication‐related osteonecrosis of the jaw (2022) · Cochrane All outcomes | RR 0.09 [0.00, 1.56] | 1 study · 132 participants | Low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Interventions for managing medication‐related osteonecrosis of the jaw 2022 · Cochrane All outcomes | 2021-06 | Not listed | Not assessed |
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.