Palateless custom bar supported overdenture: A treatment modality to treat patient with severe gag reflex.

Objective: To suggest a custom bar supported overdenture treatment modality for prosthodontic management of patients with severe gag reflex. Background: Some patients have a severe gag reflex and cannot tolerate conventional maxillary complete dentures with maximum palatal coverage and extensions of all borders. The condition further gets complicated in patients suffering from respiratory problems along with severe gag reflex. Severe gagging acts as a barrier to treat such patients with accepted clinical procedures and prevent patients from wearing the prosthesis. By saving some of the remaining natural teeth and fabricating, a horse shoe shape palateless simple tooth or bar supported overdenture can be successfully used for treating such patients. Materials and Methods: The remaining maxillary right and left canines were prepared with the tapered round end diamond bur to receive copings of custom bar after intentional root canal treatment of same teeth. Impression was made with light body and putty of the polyvinyl siloxane elastomer with double step putty wash technique. Impression was poured with die stone. Wax pattern of copings with bar was fabricated with inlay wax which was invested and casted. After retrieving the bar, it was finished and its fit was evaluated. The coping-bar assembly was finally cemented with the glass ionomer cement. Palateless overdenture was fabricated by conventional technique used for the fabrication of complete denture. Conclusion: Palateless custom bar supported overdenture procedure can be successfully used for the management of patients with severe gag reflex with improved denture retention, stability, chewing efficiency and comfort of the patient.

[Effect of Elaeagnus angustifolia lozenge on gag reflex in dental patients]

Gag reflex is one of the most common problems in dental treatment. All researches performed to reduce or eliminate this reflex were not effective or were time-consuming. The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of Elaeagnus angustifolia lozenge in controlling gag reflex during dental treatment. This study was a randomized double blind controlled trial with convenient sampling on 84 patients that were candidates for radiographic procedures in the School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences. The cases were randomly divided into two groups of case and control. The case group used Elaeagnus angustifolia L extracts and the control group used placebo. Fruit extract was formed into lozenge. Before and after intervention, the gag reflex was evaluated by stimulation of the soft palate and pharyngeal tonsils. Data analysis and comparison was performed with SPSS 11 software and Chi-square, McNamara and t tests. The gag reflex significantly decreased in the soft palate region [p<0.001] and pharyngeal tonsils [p<0.001] in the intervention group. In the placebo group, decrease of gag reflex was not significant in any of these locations [p=0.9]. The decrease in gag reflex in the soft palate and the pharyngeal tonsils in the case and control groups before and after the intervention showed statistically significant differences [P<0.01]. Elaeagnus angustifolia L. extracts seem to be an effective method to control gag reflex during dental treatment. It may be a confident method to use on dental procedures, especially radiographic procedures

Estudo comparativo de antieméticos e suas associações, na prevenção de náuseas e vômitos pós-operatórios, em pacientes submetidas a procedimentos cirúrgicos ginecológicos / Estudio comparativo de antieméticos y sus asociaciones, en la prevención de náusea y vómito postoperatorios, en pacientes sometidas a procedimientos quirúrgicos ginecológicos / Comparative study of anti-emetics and their association, in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing gynecologic surgeries

JUSTIFICATIVA E OBJETIVOS: A profilaxia de náuseas e vômitos pós-operatórios foi objeto de muitos estudos. O objetivo desta pesquisa foi comparar antieméticos e associações na prevenção de náuseas e vômitos pós-operatórios. MÉTODO: Setenta pacientes, ASA I e II, foram submetidas a procedimentos cirúrgicos ginecológicos, sob bloqueio peridural associado à anestesia geral. No Grupo Metoclopramida (GM), administrou-se 20 mg; no Grupo Dexametasona (GDe), injetou-se 8 mg; no Grupo Droperidol (GDr) administrou-se 1,25 mg; no Grupo Ondansetron (GO) injetou-se 8 mg; no Grupo Dexametasona-Ondansetron (GDeO) administrou-se, respectivamente, 8 mg e 4 mg; no Grupo Droperidol-Ondansetron (GDrO) injetou-se 1,25 mg e 4 mg; no Grupo Dexametasona-Droperidol-Ondansetron (GDeDrO) administrou-se 8 mg, 0,625 mg e 4 mg. A presença de náuseas e vômitos foi observada nos momentos de 6, 12, 24 e 36 horas após o término do ato operatório. RESULTADOS: A incidência total de episódios de náuseas foi de quatro no GDeDrO, seis no GO, seis no GDrO, 11 no GDe, 11 no GDeO, 18 no GM e 22 no GDr. Aplicando-se o teste do Qui-quadrado ou o teste de Fisher, ocorreu diferença estatística significativa entre o GDr e os grupos GDe, GDO, GDrO, GDeO, GDeDrO; entre o GM e os grupos GO, GDrO e GDeDrO; entre o GDeO e o grupo GDeDrO. A incidência total de episódios de vômitos foi de três no GO, três no GDeDrO, seis no GDrO, sete no GDe, sete no GDeO, desz no GDr e 13 no G. Verificou-se diferença estatística significativa entre o GDr e os grupos GO e GDeDrO; entre o GM e os grupos GO e GDeDrO. CONCLUSÕES: A associação dexametasona-droperidol-ondansetron e o ondansetron foram mais eficazes na profilaxia de náuseas e vômitos.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting has been the subject of several studies. The objective of the present study was to compare anti-emetics, and their association, in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting. METHODS: Seventy patients, ASA I and II, underwent epidural block associated with general anesthesia for gynecologic surgeries. Patients in the Metochlopramide Group (MG) received 20 mg of the drug; the Dexamethasone Group (DeG) received 8 mg; the Droperidol Group (DrG) received 1.25 mg; the Ondansetron Group (OG) received 8 mg; the Dexamethasone-Ondansetron Group (DeOG) received 8 mg and 4 mg, respectively; the Droperidol-Ondansetron Group (DrOG) received 1.25 mg and 4 mg, respectively; the Dexamethasone-Droperidol-Ondansetron Group (DeDrOG) received 8 mg, 0.625 mg, and 4 mg. The presence of nausea and vomiting was evaluated at 6, 12, 24, and 36 hours after the end of the surgery. RESULTS: The total incidence of episodes of nausea per group is as follows: 4 in DeDrOG, 6 in OG, 6 in DrOG, 11 in DeG, 11 in DeOG, 18 in MG, and 22 in DrG. The Chi-square and Fisher exact tests indicated statistically significant differences between DrG and DeG, DOG, DrOG, DeOG, and DeDrOG; between MG and OG, DrOG, and DeDrOG; and between DeOG and DeDrOG. And the incidence of vomiting was: 3 in OG, 3 in DeDrOG, 6 in DrOG, 7 in DeG, 7 in DeOG, and 10 in DrG, and 13 in G. There was a statistically significant difference between DrG and OG and DeDrOG; and between MG and OG and DeDrOG. CONCLUSIONS: The association dexamethasone-droperidol-ondansetron and ondansetron alone were more effective in the prophylaxis of nausea and vomiting.

JUSTIFICATIVA Y OBJETIVOS: La profilaxis de náusea y vómito postoperatorios fue objeto de muchos estudios. El objetivo de esta investigación fue comparar antieméticos y asociaciones en la prevención de náusea y vómito postoperatorios. MÉTODO: Setenta pacientes, ASA I y II, fueron sometidas a procedimientos quirúrgicos ginecológicos, bajo bloqueo epidural asociado a la anestesia general. En el Grupo Metoclopramida (GM), se administró 20 mg; en el Grupo Dexametasona (GDe), se inyectó 8 mg; en el Grupo Droperidol (GDr) se administró 1,25 mg; en el Grupo Ondansetron (GO) se inyectó 8mg; en el Grupo Dexametasona-Ondansetron (GDeO) se administró respectivamente 8 mg y 4mg; en el Grupo Droperidol-Ondansetron (GDrO) se inyectó 1,25 mg y 4 mg; en el Grupo Dexametasona-Droperidol-Ondansetron (GDeDrO) se administró 8mg, 0,625 mg y 4mg. La presencia de náuseas y vómitos fue observada en los momentos de 6, 12, 24 y 36 horas después del término de la operación. RESULTADOS: La incidencia total de episodios de náuseas fue de 4 en el GDeDrO, 6 en el GO, 6 en el GDrO, 11 en el GDe, 11 en el GDeO, 18 en el GM y 22 en el GDr. Al aplicar el test del Chi-cuadrado o el test de Fisher, se comprobó la diferencia estadística significativa entre el GDr y los grupos GDe, GDO, GDrO, GDeO, GDeDrO; entre el GM y los grupos GO, GDrO y GDeDrO; entre el GDeO y el grupo GDeDrO. La incidencia total de episodios de vómitos fue de 3 en el GO, 3 en el GDeDrO, 6 en el GDrO, 7 en el GDe, 7 en el GDeO, 10 en el GDr y 13 en el G. Se comprobó así mismo, la diferencia estadística significativa entre el GDr y los grupos GO y GDeDrO; entre el GM y los grupos GO y GDeDrO. CONCLUSIONES: La asociación dexametasona-droperidol-ondansetron y el ondansetron fueron más eficaces en la profilaxis de náuseas y vómitos.