Systematic Reviews in Craniofacial Trauma—Strengths and Weaknesses

Oral Rehabilitation of Patients Sustaining Orofacial Injuries: The UPenn Initiative

Tissue injuries in the oral and maxillofacial structures secondary to trauma, warfare, ablative cancer, and benign tumor surgery result in significant losses of speech, masticatory and swallowing functions, aesthetic deformities, and overall psychological stressors and compromise. Optimal oral rehabilitation remains a formidable challenge and an unmet clinical need due to the influence of multiple factors related to the physiologic limitations of tissue repair, the lack of site and function-specific donor tissues and constructs, and an integrated team of multidisciplinary professionals. The advancements in stem cell biology, biomaterial science, and tissue engineering technologies, particularly the 3-dimensional bioprinting technology, together with digital imaging and computer-aided design and manufacturing technologies, have paved the path for personalized/precision regenerative medicine. At the University of Pennsylvania, we have launched the initiative to integrate multidisciplinary health professionals and translational/clinical scientists in medicine, dentistry, stem cell biology, tissue engineering, and regenerative medicine to develop a comprehensive, patient-centered approach for precision and personalized reconstruction, as well as oral rehabilitation of patients sustaining orofacial tissue injuries and defects, especially oral cancer patients.

Craniofacial Tissue Engineering

The craniofacial complex is composed of fundamental components such as blood vessels and nerves, and also a variety of specialized tissues such as craniofacial bones, cartilages, muscles, ligaments, and the highly specialized and unique organs, the teeth. Together, these structures provide many functions including speech, mastication, and aesthetics of the craniofacial complex. Craniofacial defects not only influence the structure and function of the jaws and face, but may also result in deleterious psychosocial issues, emphasizing the need for rapid and effective, precise, and aesthetic reconstruction of craniofacial tissues. In a broad sense, craniofacial tissue reconstructions share many of the same issues as noncraniofacial tissue reconstructions. Therefore, many concepts and therapies for general tissue engineering can and have been used for craniofacial tissue regeneration. Still, repair of craniofacial defects presents unique challenges, mainly because of their complex and unique 3D geometry.

An assessment of the compliance of systematic review articles published in craniofacial surgery with the PRISMA statement guidelines: A systematic review

CONTEXT

Systematic review evidence is increasing within craniofacial surgery. Compliance with recognised reporting guidelines for systematic review evidence has not been assessed.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the compliance of systematic reviews published in craniofacial journals with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting criteria.

DATA SOURCES, SEARCH TERMS AND STUDY SELECTION

Thomson Reuters impact factor was used to identify three top craniofacial journals. A search for all systematic review articles published in these journals from 1st May 2010 to 30th April 2015 was conducted using MEDLINE PubMed.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two independent researchers assessed each study for inclusion and performed the data extraction. Data included the article reference information; the pathology and interventions examined and compliance of each review article with the PRISMA checklist.

DATA SYNTHESIS AND RESULTS

97 studies were returned by the search. 62 studies proceeded to data extraction. The mean percentage of applicable PRISMA items that were met across all studies was 72.5% (range 28.6-96.2%). The area of poorest compliance was with the declaration of a study protocol (19.4% of studies). Only 37.1% of studies declared their source of funding.

CONCLUSIONS

Compliance of systematic review articles within craniofacial surgery with areas of the PRISMA checklist could be improved.