Oral Myiasis in an Immunocompromised Adult Undergoing Chemotherapy: A Rare Case and Comprehensive Treatment Protocol.

Oral myiasis, a rare condition caused by the infestation of live maggots in the oral cavity, can present unique challenges in immunocompromised individuals. This case report presents a unique case of oral myiasis in an immunocompromised adult undergoing chemotherapy. A 67-year-old female suffering from metastatic carcinoma of the ovary was undergoing chemotherapy treatment at the time of presentation. Prompt diagnosis and management, including larval removal, wound care, and systemic antibiotics, were initiated. This case highlights the susceptibility of immunocompromised individuals to uncommon complications, such as oral myiasis, due to their compromised immune system. It also emphasizes the need for heightened vigilance in the oral care and monitoring of immunocompromised patients undergoing chemotherapy, as well as the importance of early intervention to prevent potential complications associated with oral myiasis. In this article, we have also included a comprehensive treatment protocol for treating this condition based on our clinical experience.

Comparison of Efficacy and Safety of Hybrid Arch Bar with Erich Arch Bar in the Management of Mandibular Fractures: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Study Design: A clinical randomized control trial. Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of Hybrid arch bar (HAB) with Erich arch bar (EAB) in fracture management of the mandible. Methods: In this randomized clinical trial, 44 patients were divided into 2 groups:- Group 1, N = 23 (EAB group) and Group 2, N = 21 (HAB group). The primary outcome was time taken for the application of arch bar, while the inner and outer glove puncture, operator prick, oral hygiene, arch bar stability, complications of HAB, and cost comparison were secondary outcomes. Results: The time taken for the application of arch bar in group 2 was significantly shorter than group 1 (55.66 ± 17.869 min vs 82.04 ± 12.197 min) and the frequency of outer glove puncture was also significantly lesser for group 2 (0 punctures vs 9 punctures). Better oral hygiene was found in group 2. EAB was cost-effective than HAB (Rs 700 ± 239.79 vs Rs 1742.50 ± 257.14). The stability of the arch bar was comparable in both groups. Group 2 had associated complications of root injury in 2 out of 252 screws placed and the screw head got covered by soft tissue in 137 out of 252 screws placed. Conclusions: Thus, HAB was better than EAB with a shorter time of application, less risk of prick injury, and improved oral hygiene.Clinical trial registry name- clinical trials registry- India, URL-http://ctri.nic.in, registration number- CTRI/2020/06/025966.