Comparison of two different lingual flap advancement techniques and vascular structure identification: a human cadaver study.

BACKGROUND: One of the most frequent complications in guided bone regeneration (GBR) is wound dehiscence, which compromises treatment outcomes. Thus, primary tension-free suture is essential to avoid wound dehiscence. The purpose of this study was to compare the extension of 2 different mandibular flaps in human cadaveric specimens, and to measure the size of the supraperiosteal blood vessels. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Five freshly unfrozen human cadaveric specimens were used. Arteries and veins were marked and bilateral classical lingual flaps (extending from the second premolar to the retromolar area) were prepared. In one side, the mylohyoid muscle was detached to increase the coronal extension of the flap. An implant drill was used to measure the extension of the flap after exerting 30 g of traction, before and after detaching the mylohyoid muscle. The size of the largest vascular structures of the flap was measured using a periodontal probe. RESULTS: The classical flap extension was 5.99 mm (95% confidence interval (CI): 5.08 to 6.90), while the coronally advanced flap extension with mylohyoid muscle detachment was 14.96 mm (95%CI: 10.81 - 19.11). A statistically significant difference was found between the 2 groups (p= 0.0002), with a mean extension difference was 8.97 mm (95%CI: 5.02 to 12.91). The mean largest artery had 0.20 mm of diameter (95%CI: 0.15 - 0.26). CONCLUSIONS: The detachment of the mylohyoid muscle from the lingual flap allows to significantly increase its extension by 2.5 times. The superficial arteries found in the lingual flap have a small diameter (around 0.2mm).

Buccal fat pad excision for cheek refinement: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Buccal Fat Pad (BFP) excision has become an aesthetic surgical procedure. Although this procedure is quite common, it is important to bear in mind that the scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of this treatment is scarce and of low quality. The purpose of this systematic review was to analyse all relevant data to assess the efficacy and safety of BFP excision for improving midface aesthetics. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A thorough search of MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus and Cochrane Library databases was conducted. The PICO approach was used where healthy patients seeking cheek slimming and facial silhouette refining undergo BFP excision and were compared before and after surgery in terms of BFP volume reduction, adverse effects and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: Of the 1,413 references identified, 4 were included in the qualitative synthesis. Only one study reported BFP volume reduction, which was 3.10 mL (95%CI: 2.38 to 3.80; P < 0.001), and the mean volume of the excised tissue was 2.74 ± 0.69 mL (range, 1.8-4.9 mL). 84.6% of the patients stated that their facial contour was much better and the remaining 15.4% noticed that the appearance of their cheeks following BFP excision was better. Seven complications were reported in the 134 cheek refinement procedures. CONCLUSIONS: BFP removal has an initially favorable outcome for facial aesthetics and a low postoperative complication rate, however, there are many procedures being performed with poor quality methodology and there is also a lack of published data on its long-term follow-up results.

Alcohol-based mouthwash as a risk factor of oral cancer: A systematic review

BACKGROUND: Oral and pharynx cancer represent a serious global problem, reaching an incidence of half a million cases annually. The role of tobacco and alcohol have been studied and proven to be one of its risk factors. We also know that mouthwashes contain a variable percentage of alcohol, so there is a reasonable concern about their role in carcinogenesis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: To answer the PICOS (Population; Intervention; Comparison; Outcomes; Study) question: "Do patients (Population) who use alcohol-based mouthwashes (Intervention) compared to those who do not use them (Comparison) have higher acetaldehyde levels in saliva or higher risk of oral cancer development? (Out-comes)" Meta-analyses, systematic reviews, randomized and non-randomized clinical trials, case-control stud-ies, and prospective and retrospective cohort studies were included (Study). Two independent authors conducted literature screening through MEDLINE, Scopus and the Cochrane Library, and they also conducted article and data extraction to undertake quality analyses. The main outcome measures were salivary acetaldehyde levels or the risk of oral cancer development. The most relevant data was extracted and the risk of bias from the studies included was also evaluated RESULTS: Out of 497 potentially eligible papers, 8 studies were included in the qualitative analysis which include a total of 43,499 subjects: two meta-analyses, a clinical trial, three case-control studies and two cohort studies. One study (n = 3,926) found a relationship between alcohol mouthwash and oral cancer, two studies (n = 25,033) found this relationship when a high frequency of mouthwash was present, three studies (n = 14,482) failed to find this relationship and 2 studies (n = 58) found a temporary increase of acetaldehyde levels in saliva after alcohol mouthwash. CONCLUSIONS: It cannot be guaranteed that the use of mouthwash represents an independent risk factor for the develop-ment of head and neck cancer. However, the risk does increase when it occurs in association with other carcinogenic risk factors

No disponible

Alcohol-based mouthwash as a risk factor of oral cancer: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Oral and pharynx cancer represent a serious global problem, reaching an incidence of half a million cases annually. The role of tobacco and alcohol have been studied and proven to be one of its risk factors. We also know that mouthwashes contain a variable percentage of alcohol, so there is a reasonable concern about their role in carcinogenesis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: To answer the PICOS (Population; Intervention; Comparison; Outcomes; Study) question: Do patients (Population) who use alcohol-based mouthwashes (Intervention) compared to those who do not use them (Comparison) have higher acetaldehyde levels in saliva or higher risk of oral cancer development? (Outcomes) Meta-analyses, systematic reviews, randomized and non-randomized clinical trials, case-control studies, and prospective and retrospective cohort studies were included (Study). Two independent authors conducted literature screening through MEDLINE, Scopus and the Cochrane Library, and they also conducted article and data extraction to undertake quality analyses. The main outcome measures were salivary acetaldehyde levels or the risk of oral cancer development. The most relevant data was extracted and the risk of bias from the studies included was also evaluated. RESULTS: Out of 497 potentially eligible papers, 8 studies were included in the qualitative analysis which include a total of 43,499 subjects: two meta-analyses, a clinical trial, three case-control studies and two cohort studies. One study (n = 3,926) found a relationship between alcohol mouthwash and oral cancer, two studies (n = 25,033) found this relationship when a high frequency of mouthwash was present, three studies (n = 14,482) failed to find this relationship and 2 studies (n = 58) found a temporary increase of acetaldehyde levels in saliva after alcohol mouthwash. CONCLUSIONS: It cannot be guaranteed that the use of mouthwash represents an independent risk factor for the development of head and neck cancer. However, the risk does increase when it occurs in association with other carcinogenic risk factors.