Efficacy of Oral Mucosal Grafting for Nasal, Septal, and Sinonasal Reconstruction: A Systematic Review of the Literature
Guardado en:
| Publicado en: | Life vol. 15, no. 8 (2025), p. 1281-1296 |
|---|---|
| Autor principal: | |
| Otros Autores: | , , , , , , |
| Publicado: |
MDPI AG
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Citation/Abstract Full Text + Graphics Full Text - PDF |
| Etiquetas: |
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Resumen: | Background: Reconstruction of nasal, septal, and nasosinusal defects is challenging when the native mucosa is absent or damaged. Oral mucosal grafts have been proposed as a reconstructive option due to their favorable biological properties, but their use in rhinology remains poorly defined. Objective: To evaluate the clinical efficacy and technical characteristics of oral mucosal grafting for nasal, septal, nasosinusal, and skull base reconstruction. Data Sources: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were searched for studies published between January 2005 and May 2025. Study Eligibility Criteria: We included original human studies (case reports or series) reporting the use of free or pedicled oral mucosal grafts in nasal, septal, nasosinusal, or skull base reconstruction. Non-original studies, animal or preclinical studies, and articles not in English or Spanish were excluded. Methods of Review: One reviewer screened titles, abstracts, and full texts using Rayyan. Methodological quality was assessed using JBI tools for case reports and case series. A narrative synthesis was conducted due to clinical heterogeneity and absence of comparison groups. The resulting assessments were reviewed by the co-authors to confirm accuracy and resolve any potential discrepancies. Results: Of 467 records identified, 10 studies were included. All were case reports or series involving buccal, palatal, or labial mucosa. Most reported good graft integration, low complication rates, and favorable functional outcomes. No randomized studies or comparative analyses were found. Limitations: Included studies had small sample sizes, lacked control groups, and showed heterogeneous methods and follow-up. The certainty of evidence could not be formally assessed. Conclusions: Oral mucosal grafting is a promising reconstructive option in selected nasosinusal and skull base defects. However, stronger comparative studies are needed to determine its clinical superiority. Registration: This review was not registered in any public database. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2075-1729 |
| DOI: | 10.3390/life15081281 |
| Fuente: | Biological Science Database |