Evaluation of complications and quality of life of patient after surgical extraction of mandibular impacted third molar teeth.

BACKGROUND: The aim of our study is to evaluate the postoperative complications after the extraction of impacted third molar teeth and to investigate the effects of these complications on the quality of life of patients. METHODS: Demographic, clinical, and radiological evaluations were conducted, covering factors like age, gender, and tooth position. Clinical measurements, pain and edema assessments, and quality of life evaluations through OHIP-14 scores were performed. Preoperative and postoperative mouth opening, trismus, alveolitis and dehiscence were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 100 patients were included in our study. No significant gender-based differences were found in measurements, pain, or swelling. There was no statistically significant difference between the preoperative and postoperative results of difference A-C, difference B-E, difference A-D, and difference mouth opening. Procedure duration correlated positively with age, alveolar osteitis, trismus, and swelling. Postoperative quality of life, assessed by OHIP-14, demonstrated a negative correlation with age and trismus. It was observed that the gender and the tooth positions of the patients had no effect on the severity of postoperative pain and edema. CONCLUSIONS: As the age of the patients increases and the duration of the procedure increases, the rate of postoperative complications increases and it is concluded that the quality of life decreases significantly.

Determining the safety margin of mandibular lingula in sagittal split ramus osteotomy.

PURPOSE: The anatomical position of the lingula is clinically very important to prevent injuries during sagittal split ramus osteotomy. Our study aims to evaluate the localisation of the lingula by cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and to compare the localisation of the lingula between malocclusion, gender, and lingula types. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted to evaluate the shape and location of the lingula using CBCT. A total of 250 CBCT images were included in this study. The lingula was classified as nodular, assimilated, truncated, or triangular type. Six defined distances from the top of the lingula were measured: anterior border of the ramus (L-A), posterior border of the ramus (L-P), internal oblique ridge (L-IOR), mandibular notch (L-N), and distal surface of the mandibular second molar (L-M2) and occlusal plane (L-OP). The measured distances were compared between gender, malocclusion, and lingula types. RESULTS: The most common type of lingula was nodular (32.4%). The L-N, L-P, L-M2, and L-OP distances between genders were statistically higher in male patients than in female patients. The L-IOR, L-M2, and L-OP distances exhibited statistically significant differences found between malocclusions. No statistically significant difference was found when the distances of the lingula to the anatomical points were compared between the lingula types. CONCLUSION: These variations in positioning of the lingula depending on the dysmorphoses are developing towards a systematic 3D examination before any mandibular osteotomy to precisely visualize the position and shape of the lingula.

Comparison of the Crestal Bone Loss Between Implant-Supported Prosthesis With Sinus Augmentation and Distal Cantilevered Implant-Supported Prosthesis Without Sinus Augmentation.

This study aimed to compare the crestal bone loss between a 2-implant-supported, noncantilevered 3-unit fixed partial prosthesis (TUFPP) with sinus augmentation and a 2-implant-supported, distal cantilevered TUFPP without sinus augmentation in the posterior maxilla having insufficient crestal bone. The study subjects were enrolled in 2 groups. Group 1 included patients with 2 implants: an anterior implant placed in the native bone and a posterior implant inserted with simultaneous sinus augmentation using a xenogenic bone graft to support a TUFPP. Group 2 included patients with 2 implants inserted in the native bone to support a distal cantilevered TUFPP. The crestal bone levels at the distal and mesial aspects of each implant were measured at baseline and 6-, 12-, and 24-month follow-up controls on panoramic radiographs. Fifty-two patients and 104 implants were included. There was a significant difference in distal crestal bone loss between anterior and posterior implants in group 1 at 6 months (P < .05) but not at 12 and 24 months (P > .05). Distal crestal bone loss was significantly increased in group 1 posterior implants compared to the group 2 posterior implants at 6 months (P < .05). There was no significant difference in mesial bone loss between the anterior and posterior implants in both groups at all follow-up controls (P > .05). There was also no significant mesial crestal bone loss in relation to the anterior and posterior implants of both groups at all follow-up controls (P > .05). Noncantilevered 2-implant-supported TUFPP with sinus augmentation may have similar medium-term crestal bone loss when compared to cantilevered 2-implant-supported TUFPP without sinus augmentation. Further prospective studies should be designed to compare the performance of the 2-implant-supported cantilevered TUFPP and 2-implant-supported TUFPP with sinus augmentation.

Effects of implant-related variables on the marginal bone loss around dental implants.

OBJECTIVE: Marginal bone loss (MBL), a prognostic parameter for implant success, is associated with implant- and patient-related variables. The purpose of this study was to analyze the effects of the crown-to-implant ratio and independent factors of implant diameter, implant length, implant type, location, and platform switching on distal and mesial MBLs at the 6-, 12-, 24-, and 36-month recall sessions of single crown implant-supported restorations. METHOD AND MATERIALS: Radiographic and clinical data of patients treated with single crown implants were collected. MBL was measured at the baseline and recall sessions on panoramic radiographs. The crown-to-implant ratio was calculated by dividing the length of the crown by that of the dental implant. RESULTS: The crown-to-implant ratio had a moderately positive correlation with distal MBL at the 6-month recall session (P < .05, r = 0.469) and a weakly positive correlation at the 12- (P < .05, r = 0.220), 24- (P < .05, r = 0.214), and 36- (P < .05, r = 0.250) month recall sessions. Distal and mesial MBL did not significantly differ among the four implant types at any recall session (P > .05). The crown-to-implant ratio had no significant correlation with mesial MBL at the 12-, 24-, or 36-month recall session (P > .05), and a moderately positive correlation at the 6-month recall session (P < .001, r = 0.434). CONCLUSIONS: MBL was similar among different implant types in the short and medium terms. There was a positive correlation between distal MBL and the crown-to-implant ratio.