Yuri Slusarenko da Silva1, Natalia Aguiar Tartaroti2, Daniel Isaac Sendyk2, Maria Cristina Zindel Deboni2, Maria da Graça Naclério-Homem2. 1. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Traumatology and Prosthesis - Faculty of Dentistry of the University of São Paulo, Av Prof. Lineu Prestes 2227 Butantã, São Paulo, 05508-000, Brazil. yu.slu@hotmail.com. 2. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Traumatology and Prosthesis - Faculty of Dentistry of the University of São Paulo, Av Prof. Lineu Prestes 2227 Butantã, São Paulo, 05508-000, Brazil.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Determine if conservative surgery of primary solid/multicystic ameloblastoma (SMA) is capable of decreasing the recurrence rate as effectively as radical surgery. METHODS: We searched in MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus and Cochrane Library for original studies reporting on the conservative or radical treatment of primary SMA and the related recurrence rate. All selected data were independently assessed. Meta-analysis was performed and the Relative Risk (RR) of recurrence with a confidence interval of 95% was the effect measure. P value for the summary effect of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: The 2647 records retrieved were reduced to 7 studies to be qualitatively assessed and 4 studies were included in the meta-analysis. RR of 1.88 [0.59, 5.95] of the pooled values pointed that recurrence rate after the conservative surgery is neither comparable nor lower than the radical surgery (P = 0.28). CONCLUSIONS: Conservative surgery does not reduce the recurrence rate as efficiently as radical surgery for primary SMA. However, there is not enough evidence to support this statement.
PURPOSE: Determine if conservative surgery of primary solid/multicystic ameloblastoma (SMA) is capable of decreasing the recurrence rate as effectively as radical surgery. METHODS: We searched in MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus and Cochrane Library for original studies reporting on the conservative or radical treatment of primary SMA and the related recurrence rate. All selected data were independently assessed. Meta-analysis was performed and the Relative Risk (RR) of recurrence with a confidence interval of 95% was the effect measure. P value for the summary effect of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: The 2647 records retrieved were reduced to 7 studies to be qualitatively assessed and 4 studies were included in the meta-analysis. RR of 1.88 [0.59, 5.95] of the pooled values pointed that recurrence rate after the conservative surgery is neither comparable nor lower than the radical surgery (P = 0.28). CONCLUSIONS: Conservative surgery does not reduce the recurrence rate as efficiently as radical surgery for primary SMA. However, there is not enough evidence to support this statement.