What is the Optimal Reconstructive Option for Oral Submucous Fibrosis? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Buccal Pad of Fat Versus Conventional Nasolabial and Extended Nasolabial Flap Versus Platysma Myocutaneous Flap

Preeti Tiwari; Rathindra Nath Bera; Nishtha Chauhan

doi:10.1007/s12663-020-01373-4

What is the Optimal Reconstructive Option for Oral Submucous Fibrosis? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Buccal Pad of Fat Versus Conventional Nasolabial and Extended Nasolabial Flap Versus Platysma Myocutaneous Flap

J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2020 Dec;19(4):490-497. doi: 10.1007/s12663-020-01373-4. Epub 2020 May 5.

Authors

Preeti Tiwari^{1

2}, Rathindra Nath Bera^{3

2}, Nishtha Chauhan^{4

2}

Affiliations

¹ Institute of Medical Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Plot No. 6, Kevalya Dham, Durga Kund, Varanasi, 221005 India.
² Division of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dental Sciences, Trauma Centre BHU, Institute of Medical Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, India.
³ Institute of Medical Sciences, Sushruta Hostel Trauma Centre BHU, Banaras Hindu University, Room No. 142, Varanasi, 221005 India.
⁴ Institute of Medical Sciences, Trauma Centre BHU, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, India.

Abstract

Background: To systematically review the reconstructive options for oral submucous fibrosis utilizing buccal pad of fat versus conventional nasolabial and extended nasolabial flap versus platysma myocutaneous flap.

Objective: The succeeding systematic review and meta-analysis addresses the following question, what is the optimal reconstructive option for oral submucous fibrosis?

Study design: A systematic electronic and manual database search revealed five relevant articles comparing buccal fat pad, nasolabial flap and platysma myocutaneous flap as reconstructive options in oral submucous fibrosis.

Methods: A total of 1538 articles were found across PubMed, Cochrane and clinical trials.gov. Only five relevant articles were selected for the study. Quality assessment of the selected studies was executed by Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Statistical software RevMan (Review Manager [Computer program], version 5.3, Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014) was used for meta-analysis. Differences in means and risk ratios were used as principal summary measures. The overall estimated effect was categorized as significant where p < 0.05.

Results: Three of the five studies selected favoured buccal fat pad over nasolabial flap owing to its ease of harvest and lesser number of post-operative complications. One study favoured nasolabial flap because of the progressive increase in mouth opening and bulk of the tissue obtained for reconstruction. A single study favoured platysma flap over nasolabial flap although no difference was obtained in mouth opening, owing its excellent tissue bulk, fewer complications compared to the nasolabial flap.

Conclusion: Definitive conclusions cannot be drawn as there are number of limitations in the studies included. However, a general consensus has been towards favouring buccal fat pad over nasolabial flap. The platysma flap owing to its excellent tissue bulk and fewer complications can be considered as an alternative when dealing with defects which are challenging to reconstruct with the buccal fat pad.

Keywords: Buccal pad of fat; Extended nasolabial flap; Nasolabial flap; Oral submucous fibrosis; Platysma myocutaneous flap; Systematic review oral submucous fibrosis.

Publication types

Review