ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: We compared the transbuccal and transoral approaches in the management of mandibular angle fractures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty patients with mandibular angle fractures were randomly divided into two equal groups (A, transoral approach; group B, transbuccal approach) who received fracture reduction using a single 2.5 mm 4 holed miniplate with a bar using either of the two approaches. Intraoperatively, the surgical time and the ease of surgical assess for fixation were noted. Patients were followed at 1 week, 3 months, and 6 months postoperatively and evaluated clinically for post-surgical complications like scarring, infection, postoperative occlusal discrepancy, malunion, and non-union. Radiographically, the interpretation of fracture reduction was also performed by studying the fracture gap following reduction using orthopantomogram tracing. The data was tabulated and subjected to statistical analysis. A P-value less than 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: No significant difference was seen between the two groups for variables like surgical time and ease of fixation. Radiographic interpretation of fracture reduction revealed statistical significance for group B from points B to D as compared to group A. No cases of malunion/non-union were noted. A single case of hypertrophic scar formation was noted in group B at 6 months postsurgery. Infection was noted in 2 patients in group B compared to 6 patients in group A. There was significantly more occlusal discrepancy in group A compared to group B at 1 week postoperatively, but no long standing discrepancy was noted in either group at the 6 months follow-up. CONCLUSION: The transbuccal approach was superior to the transoral approach with regard to radiographic reduction of the fracture gap, inconspicuous external scarring, and fewer postoperative complications. We preferred the transbuccal approach due to ease of use, minimal requirement for plate bending, and facilitation of plate placement in the neutral mid-point area of the mandible.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy of intravenous ondansetron (4 mg, 2 mL) and granisetron (2 mg, 2 mL) for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in patients during oral and maxillofacial surgical procedures under general anesthesia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective, randomized, and double blind clinical study was carried out with 60 patients undergoing oral and maxillofacial surgical procedures under general anesthesia. Patients were divided into two groups of 30 individuals each. Approximately two minutes before induction of general anesthesia, each patient received either 4 mg (2 mL) ondansetron or 2 mg (2 mL) granisetron intravenously in a double blind manner. Balanced anesthetic technique was used for all patients. Patients were assessed for episodes of nausea, retching, vomiting, and the need for rescue antiemetic at intervals of 0-2, 3, 6, 12, and 24 hours after surgery. Incidence of complete response and adverse effects were assessed at 24 hours postoperatively. Data was tabulated and subjected to statistical analysis using the chi-square test, unpaired t-test, or the Mann-Whitney U-test as appropriate. A P-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups for incidence of PONV or the need for rescue antiemetic. Both study drugs were well tolerated with minimum adverse effects; the most common adverse effect was headache. The overall incidence of complete response in the granisetron group (86.7%) was significantly higher than the ondansetron group (60.0%). CONCLUSION: Granisetron at an intravenous dose of 2 mg was found to be safe, well tolerated, and more effective by increasing the incidence of complete response compared to 4 mg intravenous ondansetron when used for antiemetic prophylaxis in maxillofacial surgery patients receiving general anesthesia. Benefits of granisetron include high receptor specificity and high potency, which make it a valuable alternative to ondansetron.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Bone grafting is a dynamic phenomenon. It is a surgical procedure that replaces missing bone with material either from patient's own body, or, an artificial, synthetic or natural substitute. A successful bone graft when applied, heals, becomes incorporated, re-vascularises and eventually assumes the form desired. AIMS AND OBJECTIVE: The main purpose of this present study was to radiologically assess and compare the regenerative potential of hydroxyapatite with Collagen (G-Graft) and hydroxyapatite (G-Bone) and to evaluate the clinical usefulness of these materials to enhance bone healing in third molar extraction sites through bone formation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was carried out in the Department of Oral & Maxillofacilal Surgery, patients were divided into three groups. The rationale for assigning the patients to the groups was strictly random: Group I - G-Graft (Hydroxyapatite with Collagen) was used as Bone graft material, Group II - Bone graft material used was G-Bone (Hydroxyapatite), Group III-control group (no grafts was used). Orthopentomogram(OPG) images were taken intra-operatively, just after extraction in the Group III (control), after extraction but before graft placement in Group I & II (study groups) and post-operatively at the end of first month and third month. Bone density of the post-extraction sockets was measured at four random areas through 'densitometric analysis' software in the OPG program (Kodak 8000C Digital Panoramic System, Eastman Kodak Company) and an average value was recorded at each review. RESULTS: The percentage increase in bone density between 1(st) month & 3(rd) month was 7.55± 12.43 in Group I (G Graft), 4.41± 5.4859 in Group II (G Bone), while that Group III (control) was found to be -0.82 ± 3.96. The bone density increase was found to be statistically highly significant (p<0.01)) between all groups. CONCLUSION: The present study concluded that G-Graft has a definite regenerative potential and is better than G-bone and can be used in bony defects to enhance the bone healing without provoking any significant inflammatory process. The study also indicates that defects treated with G-Graft attain more density initially and that G-Graft enhances bone healing in early stage.
ABSTRACT
The use of probiotics is based on the concept that adding the right live microbes to the complex human system can result in physiological benefits. The benefit of fermented milk in human diet has been acknowledged since Vedic times; however, the scientific interest in this field was evoked by Ellie Metchinkoff who recommended that people should consume fermented milk containing lactobacilli to prolong their lives, as accelerated aging is due to autointoxication caused by the toxins produced by the gut microflora. They have been used to improve gastrointestinal health and their attractiveness has evinced interest to study their role in the promotion of oral health also. Studies have been widely carried out to establish the role of intestinal lactobacilli as probiotic to treat various gastrointestinal disorders, but only limited studies are available on the oral use of probiotics. The probiotic products usually contain lactobacilli and bifidobacteria, and their demand in the market is growing day by day. This paper provides an overview of various studies in the literature that emphasize on the role of probiotics to combat oral diseases and encourages more research in this field.
