Question · asked by 1 review
Pedicled buccal fat pad flap (PBFPF) vs Buccal flap (BF): Adverse effects of treatment failure (such as graft necrosis and rejection or chronic sinusitis)
- Population
- People of any age with oro-antral communications, fistulae, or both caused by dental procedures
- Intervention
- Pedicled buccal fat pad flap (PBFPF)
- Comparison
- Buccal flap (BF)
- Outcome
- Adverse effects of treatment failure (such as graft necrosis and rejection or chronic sinusitis)
What each review found
Current versions onlyNo studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 2 · 100%Very low 0 · 0%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Pedicled buccal fat pad flap (PBFPF) vs Buccal flap (BF) Adverse effects of treatment failure (such as graft necrosis and rejection or chronic sinusitis) · People of any age with oro-antral communications, fistulae, or both caused by dental procedures Interventions for treating oro‐antral communications and fistulae due to dental procedures (2018) · Cochrane All outcomes | None reported as there were no treatment failures. | 1 study · 20 participants | GRADE not reported |
Pedicled buccal fat pad flap (PBFPF) vs Buccal flap (BF) Adverse effects of treatment failure (such as graft necrosis and rejection or chronic sinusitis) · People of any age with oro-antral communications, fistulae, or both caused by dental procedures Interventions for treating oro‐antral communications and fistulae due to dental procedures (2016) · Cochrane All outcomesearlier version CD011784.PUB2, superseded | None reported as there were no treatment failures. | 1 study · 20 participants | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Interventions for treating oro‐antral communications and fistulae due to dental procedures 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes | 2018-05-23 | 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.