Obturators versus flaps after maxillary oncological ablation: A systematic review and best evidence synthesis

Maxillary defects can be resolved by prosthetic obturation, autologous tissue reconstruction, or a combination of both. However, there is still controversy in the selection of the optimal approach. Therefore, the aim of this study was to systematically review evidences comparing the performance of obturators and flaps in patients after maxillary oncological ablation. Both electronic and manual searching approaches were conducted to identify eligible evidence. Two reviewers independently assessed the risk of bias. In addition, the same reviewers independently extracted the data. Meta-analyses were performed using Revman 5.3, and best evidence synthesis was performed. Sixteen studies were included and a total of 528 participants were analyzed. All studies were assessed at low quality. Results of this meta-analysis showed weak evidence in the difference between obturators and flaps on the outcome regarding word intelligibility (P = 0.004) and masticatory efficiency (P = 0.002). However, no differences were detected regarding speech intelligibility and nasalance. All studies were compiled into the best evidence synthesis. The sum of 31 evidences was considered. Twelve evidences were evaluated at a moderate level, such as speech, mastication, pain, salivation, taste sensations, and mouth opening. Except the outcomes of word intelligibility, masticatory efficiency, and mouth pain, other moderate evidences showed no difference between obturators and flaps. In conclusion, both obturators and flaps might be effective in patients' rehabilitation functions after maxillary ablation. However, some advantages were observed when using surgical reconstruction over prosthetic rehabilitation. Additional high-quality studies are needed to provide more solid evidence before applying these results into clinical practice.