Non-Cochrane · intervention · PM41273749
Recurrence of localized juvenile spongiotic gingival hyperplasia following surgical excision: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Lorenzo-Pouso A-I, Pérez-Jardón A, González-González A, et al. · Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal · 2026 · PubMed · doi:10.4317/medoral.27622
Findings
Population Patients with histologically confirmed localized juvenile spongiotic gingival hyperplasia (LJSGH)
9 findings
| Surgical excision | None (single-arm recurrence proportion) | Mean time to recurrence Time from surgery to recurrence | Mean (months) 6.8 GRADE not reported Studies not reported |
| Surgical excision | None (single-arm recurrence proportion) | Recurrence after surgical excision Shorter follow-up · Shorter follow-up | Proportion 0.112 GRADE not reported Studies not reported |
| Surgical excision | None (single-arm proportion) | Recurrence after surgical excision Follow-up duration (continuous) · Not specified · Meta-regression on follow-up duration | Meta-regression coefficient -0.0003 [-0.0071, 0.0063] GRADE not reported 4 studies |
| Surgical excision | None (single-arm recurrence proportion) | Proportion of recurrences occurring late (after 6 months) Late recurrence (>6 months) | Proportion 0.316 GRADE not reported Studies not reported |
| Surgical excision | None (single-arm recurrence proportion) | Recurrence after surgical excision Longer follow-up · Follow-up of 12 months (as printed; comparator symbol lost in source) | Proportion 0.189 GRADE not reported Studies not reported |
| Surgical excision | None (single-arm recurrence proportion) | Recurrence after surgical excision Postoperative follow-up (6 months to 5 years across studies) | Proportion 0.07 [0.01, 0.18] Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, publication bias 4 studies · 105 participants |
| Surgical excision | None (single-arm recurrence proportion) | Proportion of recurrences occurring early (within 6 months) Early recurrence (6 months) | Proportion 0.684 GRADE not reported Studies not reported |
| Incomplete or superficial excision (shaving, incisional biopsy, debulking, surface laser ablation) | Complete excision with adequate margins | Recurrence after surgical excision Complete excision with adequate margins | Proportion 0.083 GRADE not reported Studies not reported |
| Incomplete or superficial excision (shaving, incisional biopsy, debulking, surface laser ablation) | Complete excision with adequate margins | Recurrence after surgical excision Incomplete or superficial excision | Proportion 0.421 GRADE not reported Studies not reported |
Included primary studies 13
Open in Studies| Study | Year | Also included by | Outcomes it informs here | Trial data |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Argyris 2015 Localized juvenile spongiotic gingival hyperplasia featuring unusual p16INK4A labeling and negative human papillomavirus status by… PMID:25065444 | 2015 | this review only | Recurrence after surgical excision | not extracted yet |
| Chang 2008 Localized juvenile spongiotic gingival hyperplasia. PMID:18602289 | 2008 | this review only | Recurrence after surgical excision | not extracted yet |
| Darling 2007 Juvenile spongiotic gingivitis. PMID:17608578 | 2007 | this review only | Recurrence after surgical excision | not extracted yet |
| Delli 2017 [Localised (juvenile) spongiotic hyperplasia of the gingiva; a less common laesion]. PMID:28186511 | 2017 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Goldberg 2023 Novel treatment approach of localized juvenile spongiotic gingival hyperplasia with use of Nd:YAG laser. PMID:36811293 | 2023 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Innocentini 2020 Juvenile Spongiotic Gingival Hyperplasia: Clinicopathological Features of Eight Cases and a Literature Review. PMID:33215486 | 2020 | this review only | Recurrence after surgical excision | not extracted yet |
| Kalogirou 2017 Localized Juvenile Spongiotic Gingival Hyperplasia: Report of Two Cases. PMID:28422590 | 2017 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| MacNeill 2011 matched by author and year (probable) | NR | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Nogueira 2017 Cryotherapy for localized juvenile spongiotic gingival hyperplasia: preliminary findings on two cases. PMID:27914098 | 2017 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Roberts 2022 Case report of spongiotic gingivitis in an adult male treated with novel 9,300-nanometer carbon dioxide laser low-energy ablation. PMID:34404520 | 2022 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Siamantas 2018 Spongiotic Gingival Hyperplasia Synchronously Involving Multiple Sites: Case Report and Review of the Literature. PMID:29512024 | 2018 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Solomon 2013 Localized juvenile spongiotic gingival hyperplasia: a report of 3 cases. PMID:23930637 | 2013 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Yang 2024 Localized juvenile spongiotic gingival hyperplasia: a case report. PMID:39304511 | 2024 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
Review question
| Element | Planned (methods) | Found (results) |
|---|---|---|
| Population | Histologically confirmed LJSGH | 119 patients with histologically confirmed LJSGH (n=119), mean age 12 years |
| Intervention | Surgical excision (complete vs incomplete excision) | Surgical excision (n=13 studies) |
| Comparison | Not specified | None |
| Outcomes | Recurrence; early recurrence | Recurrence rate; timing of recurrence |
| Study designs | Not specified (case reports and case series) | Case reports and case series (n=13); 4 studies pooled (n=105) |
| Timing | Follow-up data required | Follow-up 4 months to 18 years |
AMSTAR 2 items
Two independent extractors rated each item. Their ratings are shown side by side because they have not been reconciled yet. The overall rating follows Shea et al. 2017: one critical flaw gives Low, more than one gives Critically Low.
| Item | Extractor A | Extractor B | Agree |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1Research question includes PICO components | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 2Protocol established before the reviewcritical | Partial Yes | Partial Yes | yes |
| 3Choice of study designs explained | No | No | yes |
| 4Comprehensive literature searchcritical | Partial Yes | Partial Yes | yes |
| 5Study selection in duplicate | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 6Data extraction in duplicate | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 7List of excluded studies with reasonscritical | No | No | yes |
| 8Included studies described in detail | Partial Yes | Partial Yes | yes |
| 9Risk of bias assessed satisfactorilycritical | RCT: N/A · NRSI: Yes | NRSI: Yes · RCT: N/A | no |
| 10Funding of included studies reported | No | No | yes |
| 11Appropriate meta-analysis methodscritical | RCT: N/A · NRSI: Yes | NRSI: Yes · RCT: N/A | no |
| 12Impact of risk of bias on the pooled results | No | No | yes |
| 13Risk of bias accounted for in interpretationcritical | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 14Heterogeneity explained | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 15Publication bias investigatedcritical | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 16Conflicts of interest reported | Yes | Yes | yes |
| Overall | Low | Low | yes |