Safety and efficacy of adjunctive therapy in the treatment of odontogenic keratocyst: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The odontogenic keratocyst (OKC) is a common cystic lesion in the jaw. Its management, however, is highly debated with no consensus on the best treatment option. Clinicians base their approach on treatment efficacy and associated morbidity. Management often consists of enucleation with peripheral ostectomy and adjunctive therapy to prevent recurrence. The aim of our systematic review was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of these different modalities. Embase, Medline, and Cochrane were searched according to the PRISMA guidelines for articles that presented non-syndromic patients with histopathologically confirmed OKC treated with 5-fluorouracil (5FU), Carnoy's solution (CS), or modified Carnoy's solution (MCS) as adjunctive therapy after enucleation and peripheral ostectomy. The outcomes of interest were safety (measured as adverse events) and efficacy (expressed as recurrence). Risk of bias was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Four studies were included and 62 patients were evaluated. The results show that recurrence occurred only in patients treated with MCS. Reported adverse events were mostly limited to paraesthesia that could be permanent (in the CS and MCS treatment groups) or transient (across all adjunctive therapies). With the prohibition of CS, both MCS and 5FU are promising replacement adjunctive therapies. From a safety and efficacy perspective we consider 5FU, which was associated with the lowest recurrence and fewest adverse events, to be the most viable option. More high-evidence prospective studies, such as randomised controlled trials, with a longer follow-up period are necessary to draw definite conclusions.
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 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".