ABSTRACT
Background: This study aims to explore the connection between obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and temporomandibular joint disorders (TMD) through a case-control investigation. OSA is a sleep-related breathing disorder that affects breathing during sleep, whereas TMD involves pain and dysfunction in the jaw joint. Understanding any potential association between these two conditions could contribute to improved diagnostic and therapeutic approaches. Materials and Methods: A total of 50 participants were included in both the OSA group and the control group. Participants with diagnosed OSA constituted the OSA group, whereas individuals without OSA formed the control group. TMD symptoms were assessed using standardized diagnostic criteria. Statistical analysis was performed to compare the prevalence of TMD symptoms between the two groups. Results: In the OSA group, 36 out of 50 participants exhibited TMD symptoms, whereas in the control group, 18 out of 50 participants displayed such symptoms. The calculated P value was found to be 0.023, indicating a statistically significant association between OSA and TMD. Conclusion: The findings of this study suggest a notable association between OSA and TMD. Individuals with OSA are more likely to experience TMD symptoms compared to those without OSA. This underscores the importance of considering TMD symptoms in individuals with OSA and vice versa for a comprehensive approach to diagnosis and management.
ABSTRACT
It is of interest to assess whether or not physics forceps are superior to traditional forceps for the extraction of premolar teeth in orthodontic procedures. Tooth and buccal bone fractures, as well as extraction time, lacerated gingiva, postoperative discomfort, and infection, were all measured in this research of both types of forceps extraction. Twenty individuals who need orthodontic extraction on both jaws were enrolled in the research. One arch's premolars were removed in two appointments, the first using Physics forceps and the second using conventional ones. The subsequent assignment included extraction from the obverse arch. Intraoperative evaluations included assessments of factors such as tooth and buccal bone fractures, surgical time, and gingival lacerations; postoperative assessments of pain and infection were conducted on days 1, 3, and 7. With physics forceps, the average time to remove a patient's mandible was 86.55 seconds, whereas traditional forceps required just 35.70 seconds. Using traditional forceps, the average pain score was 0.865 on day one after surgery, but with physics forceps, it was 3.30. The use of physics forceps resulted in one buccal bone fracture out of twenty premolar extractions. That so, no meaningful statistical change was seen. There was no tooth damage or post-operative infection with either set of forceps, it was found. Each forceps caused a Grade I laceration to the gingiva. The average time required removing a maxillary using physics forceps was 224.05 seconds, whereas the time required doing it with conventional forceps was 141.50 seconds. On a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), the average first-day pain after surgery using physics forceps was 4.90, whereas using traditional forceps resulted in just 3.15. The difference between using physics forceps and regular forceps was statistically significant by the third postoperative day (2.05 vs 0.75). There was a statistically insignificant increase in the occurrence of buccal bone fracture and tooth fracture while using physics forceps. Both forceps and scissors caused just grade I lacerations, and there was no postoperative infection. These findings suggest that the use of physics forceps, as opposed to conventional forceps, may significantly lengthen the time required to remove orthodontic premolars on both sides of the mouth. Non-significant results were also found for additional criteria such as buccal bone fracture, tooth fracture, gingival laceration, and post-operative discomfort. When it comes to orthodontic premolar extraction, this research found that traditional forceps performed better than modern forceps across a range of measures, including intraoperative time and postoperative discomfort.
