Cephalometric for Orthognathic Surgery (COGS) Analysis for Saudi Population

ABSTRACT Objective: To establish the cephalometric (Ceph.) norm by Ceph. for orthognathic surgery (COGS) analysis for Saudi population. Material and Methods: 500 adult Saudi samples (250 males and 250 females) with the age range of 18-30 years old were selected for this study. The selections of samples were based on a normal occlusal relationship, no history of facial trauma and no previous orthodontic treatment. Lateral Ceph. radiographs were tracing by CASSOS software and analyzed by SPSS software according to COGS analysis. Results: Significant differences were showed between the Saudi males and females on most of the Ceph. parameters. The Saudi males had a convex facial profile with chin prominent and more bimaxillary protrusion, upper and lower lip protrusion than the Saudi females. Conclusion: This study evaluated the craniofacial morphological difference between the male and the female population in Saudi Arabia by using COGS analysis. The finding of this study will help for better diagnosis of orthodontic and orthognathic surgical treatment planning and identify the morphological facial characteristics of Saudi patients.

Bacterial Colonization and Dental Implants: A Microbiological Study

Abstract Objective: To compare colony forming unit (CFU) of oral bacterial from buccal mucosa and lingual buccal tongue among patients with a dental implant and normal oral hygiene individuals without a dental implant. Material and Methods: Twenty-six individuals with a dental implant and twenty-six individuals without dental implants were included in this study. The samples were sent to the laboratory to culture with Brain Heart Infusion Broth (BHI), prepared serial dilution and then spread to the blood agar. CFU was counted when a single layer of bacteria is formed on the blood agar at any dilution level. An independent-T test was used to compare the means different of CFU oral bacterial between control and test groups from buccal mucosa and lingual buccal mucosa, respectively. Results: Buccal mucosa control group (186.19 ± 5.61) and test group (186.65 ± 6.24) (p>0.05). The result from the lingual buccal tongue control group (198.38 ± 6.12) and test group (197.96 ± 6.50) (p>0.05). There was no significant difference between the control group and test group CFU bacterial load. Conclusion: The presence of implants in the oral cavity do not interfere or worsen the oral condition; nevertheless, the effect of implants surrounding oral flora is similar to natural teeth.