Question · asked by 1 review

Delicate surgery and wound closure by primary intention vs Non-traumatic tooth avulsion and wound closure by secondary intention: MRONJ (incidence proportion)

Population
People treated with oral bisphosphonates undergoing dental extractions (at risk of MRONJ)
Intervention
Delicate surgery and wound closure by primary intention
Comparison
Non-traumatic tooth avulsion and wound closure by secondary intention
Outcome
MRONJ (incidence proportion)

What each review found

Current versions only
No studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 2 · 100%Very low 0 · 0%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
FindingEffectStudiesGRADE certainty
Delicate surgery and wound closure by primary intention vs Non-traumatic tooth avulsion and wound closure by secondary intention
Incidence of MRONJ · People treated with oral bisphosphonates undergoing dental extractions (at risk of MRONJ)
Interventions for managing medication‐related osteonecrosis of the jaw (2022) · Cochrane All outcomes
In both study arms, no case of postoperative MRONJ was observed (700 participants; 1 RCT); effect not estimable.1 study · 700 participantsGRADE not reported
Delicate surgery and wound closure by primary intention vs Non-traumatic tooth avulsion and wound closure by secondary intention
Incidence of MRONJ · People treated with oral bisphosphonates undergoing dental extractions (at risk of MRONJ)
Interventions for managing medication‐related osteonecrosis of the jaw (2017) · Cochrane All outcomesearlier version CD012432.PUB2, superseded
In both study arms, no case of postoperative MRONJ was observed (700 participants; 1 RCT); effect not estimable.1 study · 700 participantsGRADE not reported

Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.

The reviews

ReviewSearched up toIncluded studiesAMSTAR 2
Interventions for managing medication‐related osteonecrosis of the jaw
2022 · Cochrane All outcomes
2021-06Not listedNot 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.