Bergmannovesen0396
Pathologies present in the central zone of the mandible are difficult to access, primarily because of the presence of the inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) and the need to remove a large corticocancellous component to reach the area of interest. Many times, this bony window is replaced as a free graft and there is complete resorption in the long term or even rejection of the graft causing a bony defect which can weaken the mandible. Furthermore, the damage to the IAN is profound. To try and avoid these comorbidities the traditional sagittal split osteotomy was modified to access a central osteoma impinging on the IAN and the successful removal of the same without any comorbidities such as paraesthesia or loss of bone structure. We believe that this modification can be used for other scenarios such as benign cysts and difficult presentations of impacted teeth.This Consensus-Document is issued by the International Implant Foundation (Munich/Germany). It describes distinct methods of placement of cortico-basal oral implants in different areas of the jaw bone and the maxillo-facial skeleton. The implants utilize the method of "osseofixation" instead of "osseointegration" for achieving primary, functional stability, hence they work according to the (AO-) principles of fracture treatment. The concept of the technology allows for immediate functional loading, just as it allows for various types of loading following orthopaedic surgery. The 16 methods and sub-methods as described and displayed here have been undergoing extensive observation and testing and they have been approved by the Board of the International Implant Foundation. All Consensus Documents of the International Implant Foundation are revised every three years. TVB-2640 ic50 This is the 3rd version of the Consensus Document on placement of corticobasal oral implants Level of Evidence S3 (evidence based, systematically developed consensus guideline).
We all know about the grave situation caused by the novel coronavirus in recent times. Although the maxillofacial surgeons are not at forefront of dealing with the coronavirus directly, they are at increased risk due to their working area on face, mouth, and oral cavity. There is an urgent need to upgrade the already set guidelines and follow them stringently. Any procedure done within the oral cavity is a high-risk procedure and this upgradation is necessary because present means are insufficient to prevent infection from this deadly virus. This article aims to review and discuss all the new gadgets and armamentarium required to deal with patients during and post coronavirus pandemic.
The authors performed a thorough literature search on various armamentarium and new gadgets introduced into the field of dentistry during the coronavirus pandemic worldwide. The relevant armamentarium is discussed under three broad headings, namely, those required before, during and after the procedures for easy understandiding to their exclusive practice. Yet, the authors encourage all health care professionals to focus on better training in infection control and cross-contamination.
The retromolar fossa is a small triangular area posterolateral to 3rd molar region in the mandible. The retromolar fossa often contains the retromolar foramen (RMF) as an anatomical variant. When the RMF is present, the foramen is connected with the mandibular canal (MC) through another canal known as the retromolar canal (RMC). RMC contains neurovascular bundle, which gives additional supply to the mandible. Although few studies have been conducted in past, a lacunae in comprehensive review is lacking. Although, these variations posed challenging situations for the practicing surgeons, they have been quite neglected and not well presented in textbooks. Hence, we made an attempt to provide a comprehensive and consolidated review regarding RMF and RMC.
The relevant articles were selected by hand search and electronic media (Google scholar, PubMed, Science Direct, Medline, Embase and Cochrane) from 1987 to 2019. All the relevant articles were properly screened and findings were extracted from the articles.
xamination technique like CBCT.COVID-19, a worldwide pandemic, has given an awakening and introspective moment for all surgeons involved with aerosol-generating procedures. We ought to modify our practices to learn to live with it if we wish to prevail over it. This article outlines similar small changes that can be done in our minor maxillofacial surgery practice to safeguard both patients and healthcare workers.
Orofacial clefts (OFCs) are among the most common craniofacial developmental abnormalities worldwide and a significant cause of childhood morbidity and mortality. This study aimed to identify patterns of patient presentation, treatment approaches, and changes in our overall cleft care service between 2007 and 2019.
A retrospective review of patients managed at a tertiary health facility in Nigeria of all OFC cases operated between 2007 and 2019 was done using the postintervention data retrieved from the Smile Train database. Data of all OFC cases operated within the period were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. Descriptive statistics were performed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences version 20.0.
A total number of 740 OFC surgeries were performed in 565 patients, consisting of 269 females (48.2%) and 289 males (51.8%). The majority (63%) of the patients presented before the age of 2 years. Thirty-seven percent presented with cleft lip and alveolus, 27.1% plinary team approach and provision of a wide range of services including nutritional counseling, pediatric care, orthodontic services, and speech therapy. We believe these will improve the overall well-being of our patients while we continue to improve on services based on clinical research outcomes.
Orofacial clefts are one of the most common congenital malformations in the facial region. Older maternal or paternal age presents higher odds of a child with an orofacial cleft. The objective of the study was to assess the association between parental age and risk of orofacial cleft.
This was a case-control study among 110 parents of children with orofacial cleft (case group) and 110 parents of children without orofacial cleft (control group). Information on maternal age, paternal age, and type of orofacial cleft in the children were obtained. The results were analyzed using descriptive statistics, Chi-square analysis, and bivariate logistic regressions to measure the association between parental age and orofacial cleft. The value of P was <0.05, with a 95% confidence interval (CI).
Information on 219 children (109 cases and 110 controls) was analyzed, of which 52% were females. One respondent from the case group withdrew from the study. The odds of a child with orofacial cleft was statistically significantly lower in mothers aged 26-35 years compared to mothers aged 25 years and less (odds ratio [OR] 0.
