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
AIM: The present clinical trial was designed to investigate the effectiveness of subgingivally delivered satranidazole (SZ) gel as an adjunct to scaling and root planing (SRP) in the treatment of chronic periodontitis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy subjects with probing depth (PD) ≥5 mm were selected. Thirty-five subjects each were randomly assigned to SRP + placebo (Group 1) and SRP + SZ (Group 2). The clinical outcomes evaluated were plaque index, gingival index, clinical attachment level (CAL), and PD at baseline; 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months interval. Furthermore, microbial analysis using polymerase chain reaction was done to estimate the number of sites harboring periodontopathogens. RESULTS: Sixty four subjects were evaluated up to 6 months. At 6 months, the Group 2 resulted in greater mean reduction (4.10 mm) in PD as compared to Group 1 (1.49 mm), and also a greater mean CAL gain (4.20 mm) in Group 2 as compared to Group 1 (1.13 mm). These subjects also showed a significant reduction in the number of sites harboring periodontopathogens. CONCLUSION: The use of 3% SZ gel, when used as an adjunct to nonsurgical periodontal therapy in subjects with periodontitis, achieved better results than initial periodontal treatment alone.
