Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 5 de 5
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg ; 60(10): 1373-1378, 2022 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36253321

ABSTRACT

The incidence of head injury in maxillofacial trauma patients varies widely in the literature. A good understanding of the patterns of association between these injuries would aid in efficient multidisciplinary treatment. The aim of this study therefore was to understand the associations between head injury and facial trauma by retrospectively analysing the records of patients seen at a tertiary care trauma centre. Demographic data were also described. Records of 4350 facial trauma patients over a five-year period were reviewed. A total of 3564 (81.9%) patients were victims of motor vehicle accidents (MVA). Male patients predominated, comprising 3711 (85.3%), and 36.6% were in the third decade of life. Facial fractures were seen in 2120 (48.7%), the most common being zygomatic fractures (60%). At the time of trauma, 2383 (57.3%) patients were under the influence of alcohol, and 2821 (87.8%) victims of two-wheeler MVAs were not using their helmet. Of all patients, 29.75% sustained a traumatic brain injury (TBI). Midface fractures were strongly associated with TBI. Maxillofacial injury may be considered a risk factor for TBI, and as such should immediately be suspected and investigated in all patients. Prompt recognition and management can improve outcomes in these patients.


Subject(s)
Brain Injuries , Craniocerebral Trauma , Maxillofacial Injuries , Skull Fractures , Humans , Male , Retrospective Studies , Maxillofacial Injuries/epidemiology , Skull Fractures/epidemiology , Skull Fractures/etiology , Brain Injuries/complications , Accidents, Traffic
2.
Chin J Traumatol ; 2022 Dec 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36631310

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Trauma accounts for the leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide in the present day and may rightly be called the new pandemic. The prominent nature of the face exposes it to various traumatic injuries. A timely, prompt diagnosis along with employment of correct and quick treatment greatly improves the outcome for these patients. The aim of this retrospective study was to analyse the characteristics of maxillofacial injuries over a decade. METHODS: The data were collected manually from the medical records of patients who reported to the tertiary centre from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2019. All injured patients irrespective of age/gender with complete hospital records of clinical and radiographical diagnosis of maxillofacial injuries were included. The demographic data, etiology, site and type of injury, and seasonal variation were analyzed. Data were tabulated into six age groups (0-7 years, 8-18 years, 19-35 years, 36-40 years, 41-59 years, and >60 years). Five etiological factors, i.e. road traffic accidents, falls, assaults, sports-related, and occupational accidents, were further evaluated based on genders. Facial injuries were classified into six types: panfacial fractures, mandibular fractures (subcategorized), midface fractures (subcategorized), dentoalveolar fractures, dental injuries, and soft tissue injuries. The monthly and seasonal variation of the injuries was also charted. Data were expressed as frequency and percent. RESULTS: A total of 10,703 injuries were included from the tertiary centre from the period of 2011-2019, including 8637 males and 2066 females, with the highest occurrence of the injuries between 19 and 35 years. Road traffic accident was the principal etiological factor of the maxillofacial injuries in both genders (80.5%). This was followed by falls (9.6%), assaults (8.0%), occupational accidents (1.2%), and sporting injuries (0.7%). Midface fractures amounted for 52.5% (5623 fractures), followed by mandibular fractures (38.1%). CONCLUSION: The current study describes a change in the incidence of injuries along with variation in the demographic data. The implementation of safety gears and stricter traffic laws along with public awareness may aid in the reduction of maxillofacial injuries.

3.
Case Rep Dent ; 2018: 7583082, 2018.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29850282

ABSTRACT

Dentigerous cysts represent the second most common odontogenic cysts of the jaws after radicular cysts and are usually associated with the crowns of unerupted permanent teeth and rarely deciduous teeth. They are usually solitary in their presentation. Multiple and bilateral dentigerous cysts are an extremely rare presentation in the absence of developmental syndromes or systemic diseases or the use of prescribed certain medications. We hereby present a case of a bilateral dentigerous cyst of the maxilla in a 10-year-old child involving the crowns of unerupted permanent second premolar on the right side and the unerupted permanent canine on the left side. An effort has also been made to review the existing literature on this entity and to stress the importance of radiographic and histopathological examinations in diagnosing such an entity.

4.
J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg ; 42(3): 144-50, 2016 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27429936

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.

5.
J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg ; 42(2): 84-9, 2016 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27162748

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.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...