“…Out of 152 initially evaluated, 131 were excluded due to (1) being case reports or case series ( n = 21); (2) having no data, which was relevant to the study topic ( n = 67); (3) having no numerical data ( n = 43). Finally, a total of 21 studies were included in this meta‐analysis (Al‐Amery et al, 2016; Behnia et al, 2000; Benninger et al, 2013; Chan et al, 2010; Dias et al, 2015; Erdogmus et al, 2008; Hölzle & Wolff, 2001; Iwanaga, 2017; Karakas et al, 2007; Kiesselbach & Chamberlain, 1984; Kikuta et al, 2019; Kim et al, 2004; Kocabiyik et al, 2009; Mendes et al, 2013; Miloro et al, 1997; Pogrel et al, 1995; Shimoo et al, 2017; Shinohara et al, 2010; Sittitavornwong et al, 2017; Tan et al, 2014; Trost et al, 2009). Furthermore, The AQUA tool, which was designed explicitly for anatomical meta‐analyses, was used to minimize the potential bias of included studies (Henry et al, 2016).…”