The use of corticosteroids in the lateral sinus augmentation surgical procedure: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The lateral maxillary sinus augmentation (MSA) procedure has good predictability in terms of the success of bone regeneration with a low incidence of postoperative infections, estimated between 2% and 5.6%. Although the use of antibiotics is an established and standardized prophylactic measure for MSA procedures, the addition of corticosteroids still varies among clinician preference and clinical judgment. PURPOSE: The aim of this systematic review was to identify whether the administration of corticosteroids during the MSA surgical procedure affects postoperative symptoms including swelling, pain, and infection rate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature search through PubMed, EMBASE, Ovid MEDLINE, and Web of Science indices, according to PICO criteria, was conducted to identify whether MSA peri-operative use of corticosteroids reduces the incidence of complications and patient morbidity. A single arm meta-analysis was performed due to the lack of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing groups treated with or without peri-operative corticosteroids. The intracluster correlation co-efficient (ICC) and design effect were calculated to adjust for the clustering design. RESULTS: In the 37 studies included, a total of 1599 patients (378 Cort, 1221 No-Cort) were analyzed. Before and after taking account of clustering, there was statistically significant effect of corticosteroids on swelling, pain, wound dehiscence, trismus, and hematoma. The complication rates postoperatively were comparable between the two study groups, however slight differences existed in the incidence of active suppuration (1.7% [95% CI 0.7-3.9] Cort vs. 3.2% [2.2-4.5] No-Cort), wound dehiscence (3.9% [1.3-11.2] Cort vs. 2.1% [1.0-4.1] No-Cort) and trismus (2.7% [0.8-8.4] Cort vs. 1.4% [0.8-2.5] No-Cort). CONCLUSIONS: Although the event rate of the 1-to-2-week postoperative complications did not differ between the two groups, the lack of conclusive data and research comparing peri-operative corticosteroid use makes it impossible to draw definitive conclusions and more evidence and studies designed for this specific purpose are needed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.026 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".