Change in taste sensation after orthognathic surgery.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of orthognathic surgery on taste sensation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-five patients scheduled to undergo Le Fort I osteotomy (LFIO), sagittal split ramus osteotomy (SSRO), and bimaxillary surgery (BMS) were evaluated by administering localized and whole-mouth taste tests preoperatively and postoperatively at months 1, 3, and 6. The patients were asked to identify the quality of four basic tastes applied to six locations on the palate and tongue and to rate the taste intensities they perceived. Taste recognition thresholds and taste intesity scores were evaluted according to operation groups and follow-ups. RESULTS: There were significant decreases in the quinine HCl recognition thresholds at the postoperative follow-ups compared to the preoperative in LFIO patients (p = 0.043). There were significant decreases in sucrose taste intensity scores in the right posterolateral part of the tongue at months 3 and 6 compared to preoperative in SSRO patients (p = 0.046), and significant increases in quinine HCL taste intensity scores in the right and left anterior parts of the tongue at month 6 compared to preoperative in LFIO patients (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Taste perception is affected due to potential damage to the chemosensory nerves during orthognathic surgical procedures. Generally, non-significant alterations have been observed in taste perception after orthognathic surgery, except for significant alterations in bitter and sweet taste perceptions. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Maxillofacial surgeons should be aware of taste perception change after orthognathic surgery procedures and patients should be informed accordingly. THE TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER (TRN): NCT06103422/Date of registration: 10.17.2023 (retrospectively registered).

Prophylactic third molar removal: are oral surgeons and orthodontists aligned in preventive approaches?

BACKGROUND: There is a general consensus among dental professionals regarding the extraction of impacted third molars in the presence of clinical symptoms. However, there is less agreement on the management of asymptomatic third molars. The objective of this study is to compare the perspectives of oral surgeons and orthodontists regarding the indications for the extraction of asymptomatic third molars. It is possible that healthcare professionals from different specialties may approach the extraction of these teeth in different ways. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, a web-based questionnaire has been employed to collect data by inquiring about the reasons why participants prefer the extraction of asymptomatic third molars. Descriptive statistics were employed to evaluate the data obtained. The level of significance was set at P < 0.05. RESULTS: Prophylactic extraction of partially impacted molars was more favored among the participants (P < 0.05). The orthodontists preferred prophylactic extraction due to the risk of late anterior dental crowding (LADC); however, the oral surgeons preferred pre-pregnancy extractions (P < 0.05). The extraction decision for partial impaction was higher in females when the risk of distal caries was considered. For fully impacted ones, it was higher in males when the risk of caries and pericoronitis were considered (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Orthodontists preferred extraction because of the risk of LADC and caries, while oral surgeons focused on preventing pericoronitis, pathology, focal infection, and symptoms during pregnancy. This divergence between the participants may inform the guidelines for prophylactic management of third molars. These findings may be pertinent in gender medicine. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study has been enlightening for departments to consult each other before the extraction of a patient's asymptomatic third molar.