Healing of Extracted Socket after Surgical Removal of Impacted Mandibular 3rd Molar: A Comparison of PRP VS PRP with Bone Graft

Background: Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is an autologous concentration of human platelets in a small volume of plasma. Because it is a concentration of platelets, it is also a concentration of the 7 fundamental protein growth factors proved to be actively secreted by platelets to initiate all wound healing. PRP contributes to better healing of soft tissues and bone and is a visible means of growth factor delivery. Aims & Objectives: a) To compare osteo -inductive capacity following surgical removal of impacted mandibular 3rd molar teeth b) to compare the difference in osteoinduction between PRP vs PRP + Bone Graft, c) Establish the potential benefits of these biomaterials in the regeneration of post-extraction alveolar bone. Methods:This is a prospective, randomized clinical trial involving 15 patients (split arch – 30 impacted molar teeth) who visited KKUCOD (Alsamer campus) for surgical removal of symptomatic impactedmandibular third molars. The study was conducted following due clearance from ethical and research committee of the institution (SRC/ETH/2016-17/004). The inclusion criteria included: Female patients aged between 18 and 45, b) Impacted mandibular third molar with similar anatomical position, and similar difficulty index.c Patient informed consent to carry out the intervention and for inclusion in the study. d) No allergies to medicines, non –smokers, non-alcoholics, no drug allergy and patients not under oral contraceptives. Results: The results are compiled as tables for different groups with percentage of bone formation at the end of week 1,3, 6 and at the end of 3rd months. There is not much difference in osteoinduction with the addition of PRP alone when compared to control side. However, addition of graft with PRP definitely enhances osteoinduction and makes a significant contribution in neo bone regeneration Conclusion: 1. PRP contributes significantly to osteogenesis when mixed with bone graft. 2. Healing is better when extracted sockets are supplemented with PRP. 3. There is no incidence of allergic reaction with the use of allogeneic bone grafts.

Penile autotransplantation in rats: an animal model

Penile allotransplantation might be a viable option for patients who need penile reconstruction. A successful autotransplantation rat model is the first step toward proceeding for allotransplantation. We here in evaluate autotransplantation following transaction of the rat penis just distal to the urethral bulb. Experimental animal study. Five Sprague-Dawely rats weighing 520 g [SD 19] were used. Utilizing a magnification of 6-40, transection and immediate anastomosis of the tunica albuginea, urethra, dorsal vein and nerves were carried out. Vesicostomy was made to divert urine. The glandular skin was sutured to the perineum and the abdominal wall was closed in layers. Descriptive statistics. Average surgery time was 8 h. The first two rats had no vesicostomy and died in the first postoperative day from retention. Three rats tolerated well the procedure and survived to the end point. One rat was sacrificed at day 10 and histopathology showed 30-50% necrosis of the implanted penis. Another rat was sacrificed at day 20 and showed normal cavernous tissue. The fifth rat was sacrificed 3 months postoperatively and showed evidence of moderate corporal fibrosis. Urethral fistula and necrosis of corpus spongiosum, dorsal nerve necrosis and dorsal vein occurred in all animals. Penile autotransplantation in rats is feasible and provides the basis for evaluation of the corpora cavernosa in an allotransplantation model. Long-term urethral continuity and dorsal neurovascular bundle survival in this model is difficult to establish

treatment of persistent recurrent vulvovaginal candidiasis

Fifty Iraqi female patients were treated for persistent recurrent candidiasis. All of them had several previous treatment with different types of antifungal drugs. Cross infection was taken into account and treatment was carried out for both wives and husbands at the same time. The results confirm that cross infection was the main reason in perpetuating the infection