| Literature DB >> 33827533 |
Marek Nahajowski1, Sylwia Hnitecka2, Joanna Antoszewska-Smith3, Kornelia Rumin3, Magdalena Dubowik3, Michał Sarul3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A dentigerous cyst (DC) is a pathology embracing the crown of an unerupted tooth at risk of malignant transformation. The causal tooth is usually removed together with the cyst. However, if there are orthodontic contraindications for extraction, two questions arise. (1) Which factors favor spontaneous eruption? (2) Which factors imply the necessity of applying orthodontic traction? This systematic review aimed to identify factors conducive/inconducive to the spontaneous eruption of teeth after dentigerous cyst marsupialization.Entities:
Keywords: Dentigerous cyst; Eruption interval; Orthodontics; Systematic review
Year: 2021 PMID: 33827533 PMCID: PMC8028237 DOI: 10.1186/s12903-021-01542-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Oral Health ISSN: 1472-6831 Impact factor: 2.757
PICOS format
| Parameter | Inclusion criteria |
|---|---|
| Population | Patients of any age, gender and ethnicity with the teeth associated with dentigerous cysts |
| Intervention | Spontaneous tooth eruption after surgical DC treatment |
| Comparison | Lack of a spontaneous tooth eruption after surgical DC treatment |
| Outcome | Time to eruption; factors potentially influencing spontaneous tooth eruption, e.g. root formation stage, tooth angulation, distance between the top of a tooth cusp and the edge of the alveolar process, cyst area, eruption space, age, gender |
| Study design | Randomized clinical trials (RCT), prospective controlled clinical trials (CCT), case series, observational studies, review articles, and retrospective studies; published in English |
Fig. 1Flow chart
Impact of variables defined in the methodology on teeth eruption after DC removal
| Fujii et al. [ | Hyomoto et al. 1 | Qian et al. [ | Yahara et al. [ | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intervention and Comparison | Spontaneous eruption | Lack of spontaneous eruption | Spontaneous eruption | Lack of spontaneous eruption | Spontaneous eruption | Lack of physiological eruption of the opposite teeth | Spontaneous eruption | Lack of spontaneous eruption |
| Number of teeth/number of observations (n) | 45/60 | 15/60 | 38/47 | 9/47 | 15/15 | 9/15 | 15/21 | 6/21 (no eruption after 360 days) |
| Time elapsed from marsupialization to orthodontic force application | X | NR | X | NR | X | No orthodontic treatment performed | X | NR |
| Eruption period (days) | 90.4 ± 91.8 | 65.4 ± 141.5 | 109 | NR | 263 ± 33 | 807 ± 112 | 174 ± 84 | NR |
| Mean age (years) | 10.5 ± 1.9 | 13.7 ± 4.8 | 10.6 ± 2.0 | 13.1 ± 2.9 | 9.1 ± 0.8 | 9.1 ± 0.8 | 9.8 ± 2.1 | 13.2 ± 2.8 |
| Sex (n) | 33 M, 27F | 34 M, 24F (whole group with canines) | 7 M, 4F | 12 M, 9F | ||||
| Cusp depth (mm) | 4.5 ± 4.3 | 9.8 ± 5.7 | 4.4 ± 4.5 | 9.3 ± 6.31 | 5.4 ± 5.2 | 3.5 ± 2.7 | S: 14, D:1a | S: 2, D: 4a |
| Angulation (°) | 24.6 ± 21.5 | 52.7 ± 45.0 | 21.8 ± 20.4 | 67.7 ± 49.8 | 39.1 ± 31.6 | 10.5 ± 8.3 | 62.6 ± 19.6 | 26.6 ± 21.7 |
| Root formation | NR | NR | < 1/2: 17, 1/2–3/4: 11, 3/4–4/4 (open apex): 9, mature root: 1 | < 1/2: 3, 1/2–3/4: 0, 3/4–4/4 (open apex): 2, mature root: 4 | < 1/2: 7, 1/2–3/4: 10 | < 1/2: 6, 1/2–3/4: 7, 3/4–4/4: 4 | < 1/2: 9, > 1/2: 6 | < 1/2: 5, > 1/2:1 |
| Cyst area (mm2) | 513.0 ± 240.2 | 465.1 ± 344.2 | 533.8 ± 239.8 | 546.7 ± 406.5 | 231.9 ± 197.8 | No cyst | NR | |
| Space/tooth size | 1.1 ± 0.2 | 0.8 ± 0.6 | 1.0 ± 0.2 | 1.0 ± 0.5 | 1.26 ± 0.23 | 1.28 ± 0.24 | 1.08 ± 0.36 | 1.14 ± 0.12 |
NR, not reported; M, males; F, females
aS, D: shallower (S) or deeper (D) than the line that passes the one-half of the roots of the adjacent teeth
Risk of bias
| Domain | Study | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fujii et al. | Hyomoto et al. | Qian et al. | Yahara et al. | |
| Bias due to confounding | Serious risk | Serious risk | Serious risk | Serious risk |
| Bias in the selection of participants into the study | Critical risk | Critical risk | Critical risk | Critical risk |
| Bias in the classification of interventions | Serious risk | Serious risk | Serious risk | Serious risk |
| Bias due to deviations from intended interventions | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk |
| Bias due to missing data | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk |
| Bias in measurement of outcomes | Moderate risk | Moderate risk | Moderate risk | Moderate risk |
| Bias in the selection of the reported result | Moderate risk | Moderate risk | Moderate risk | Moderate risk |
| Overall | Critical risk | Critical risk | Critical risk | Critical risk |
Quality assessment according to the modified Newcastle—Ottawa Scale
| Study | Selection (0–4 points) | Comparability (0–2 points) | Outcome assessment (0–3 points) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fujii et al. | 4 | 1 | 2 |
| Hyomoto et al. | 4 | 1 | 2 |
| Qian et al. | 4 | 2 | 3 |
| Yahara et al. | 4 | 1 | 3 |
Heterogeneity analysis
| Parameter | Q | I2 |
|---|---|---|
| Percentage of spontaneously erupted teeth | 7.55 | 0.60 |
| Mean age | 40.54 | 0.93 |
| Cusp depth | 17.78 | 0.89 |
| Angulation | 96.32 | 0.97 |
| Root formation stage | 4.78 | 0.58 |
| Cyst area | 0.48 | 0.00 |
| Space/tooth size | 12.18 | 0.75 |
Fig. 2Risk ratio for spontaneous tooth eruption after marsupialization
Fig. 3Age difference between the study group and the control group
Fig. 4Root formation difference between the study group and the control group
Fig. 5Cusp depth difference between the study group and the control group
Fig. 6Tooth angulation difference between the study group and the control group
Fig. 7Cyst area difference between the study group and the control group
Fig. 8Eruption space/tooth size difference between the study group and the control group
GRADE summary of findings
| Admission type | No. of studies | Study design | Risk of bias | Inconsistency | Indirectness | Imprecision | Other considerations | RR (95% CI) | Certainty |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RR (risk ratio) for spontaneous eruption of the teeth | 4 | Retrospective cohort studies | Serious | Seriousa | Not serious | Seriousb | None | 2.608 | Very low |
| D (mean difference) for mean age | 4 | Retrospective cohort studies | Serious | Seriousa | Not serious | Seriousb | None | NR | Very low |
| RR (risk ratio for root formation) | 3 | Retrospective cohort studies | Serious | Seriousa | Not serious | Seriousb | None | 2.106 | Very low |
| D (mean difference) for cusp depth | 3 | Retrospective cohort studies | Serious | Seriousa | Not serious | Seriousb | None | NR | Very low |
| D (mean difference) for angulation | 4 | Retrospective cohort studies | Serious | Seriousa | Not serious | Seriousb | None | NR | Very low |
| D (mean difference) for cyst area | 2 | Retrospective cohort studies | Serious | Seriousa | Not serious | Seriousb | None | NR | Very low |
| D (mean difference) for space/tooth size | 4 | Retrospective cohort studies | Serious | Seriousa | Not serious | Seriousb | None | NR | Very low |
GRADE, Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation; RR, risk ratio; CI, confidence level; NR, not reported
aDifferent sample sizes and timings of studies lead to inconsistency in the results
bVery few studies published which raises the suspicion of publication bias
GRADE quality of evidence: High quality: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect. Moderate quality: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different. Low quality: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited. The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect. Very low quality: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect