Assessment of Surgical Accuracy in Maxillomandibular Advancement Surgery for Obstructive Sleep Apnea: A Preliminary Analysis.

This retrospective study aimed to: (1) investigate the surgical accuracy of maxillomandibular advancement (MMA) in obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) patients, with a specific focus on maxillary and mandibular advancement and counter-clockwise rotation and (2) investigate the correlation between the amount of achieved advancement and the reduction in the relative apnea hypopnea index (AHI). Sixteen patients, for whom a three-dimensional virtual surgical plan was generated preoperatively and a computed tomography scan (CT) or cone-beam computer tomography (CBCT) was acquired postoperatively, were included. The postoperative CT or CBCT was compared to the virtual surgical plan, and differences in the mandibular and maxillary advancement and counter-clockwise rotation were assessed. Maxillary and mandibular advancement (median 3.1 mm, p = 0.002 and 2.3 mm, p = 0.03, respectively) and counter-clockwise rotation (median 3.7°, p = 0.006 and 4.7°, p = 0.001, respectively) were notably less than intended. A significant correlation was found between the planned maxillary advancement and the difference between the planned and actual maxillary advancement (p = 0.048; adjusted R2 = 0.1979) and also between the planned counter-clockwise rotation and the difference between the planned and actual counter-clockwise rotation for the mandible (p = 0.012; adjusted R2 = 0.3261). Neither the maxilla-first nor the mandible-first surgical sequence proved to be superior in terms of the ability to achieve the intended movements (p > 0.45). Despite a significant reduction (p = 0.001) in the apnea hypopnea index (AHI) from a median of 62.6 events/h to 19.4 events/h following MMA, no relationship was found between the extent of maxillary or mandibular advancement and AHI improvement in this small cohort (p = 0.389 and p = 0.387, respectively). This study underlines the necessity for surgeons and future research projects to be aware of surgical inaccuracies in MMA procedures for OSA patients. Additionally, further research is required to investigate if sufficient advancement is an important factor associated with MMA treatment outcome.

Healthcare costs of different treatment options for condylar fractures.

Objective: As treatment options for condylar fractures have comparable outcomes, getting insight into associated costs is a first step towards implementing value-based healthcare (VBH). Therefore, we described the actual costs of the different treatment options (surgical, conservative, and expectative treatment) for condylar fractures. We expected surgical treatment to be the most expensive treatment. Study design: This is a cost-of-illness study, based on estimates from the literature. Firstly, care pathways of all treatment options were described. Secondly, the costs per step were calculated based on the literature and Dutch guidelines for economic evaluations in health care. Results: The direct treatment costs of surgical treatment (€3721 to €4040) are three to five times higher than conservative treatment (€730 to €1332). When lost productivity costs during the recovery period are included, costs of surgical treatment remain 1.5 times higher (€9511 to €9830 for surgical treatment and €6224 to €6826 for conservative treatment). The costs of expectative treatment (€5436) are lower than both other treatments. Conclusion: The costs for surgical treatment are considerably higher than those for conservative or expectative treatment, mainly related to direct treatment cost. Future research should focus on the patients' perspective, to support implementation of VBH in treating condylar fractures.

Financial, psychological, or cultural reasons for extracting healthy or restorable teeth.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to determine how often dental patients request extraction for nondental reasons and how dentists handle such requests. METHODS: The authors conducted a survey among 800 Dutch dentists from November 17, 2019, through January 5, 2020. The questionnaire contained 17 items, including a hypothetical case vingette. RESULTS: A total of 242 dentists responded to the survey (response rate was 30.3%, 48.3% of respondents were women, and mean [standard deviation] age was 45.3 [11.8] years). Sixty-eight percent of respondents reported that they had been confronted with a request for extraction on nondental grounds in the past 3 years. One-half of these dentists received such a request 5 times or fewer, 21.3% received such a request 6 through 10 times, 11.3% received such a request 11 through 20 times, and 8.8% received such a request 21 through 30 times. Their most recent request concerned a financial reason (49.7%), a combination of psychological and financial reasons (27.7%), a psychological reason (18.2%), or another reason (4.4%). Most dentists (87.5%) evaluated the patient's competency to make health care decisions. Of all nondental extraction requests, 75.6% (n = 114) were granted. Only 4.0% (n = 6) of the dentists regretted the extraction. Most dentists (82.0%, n = 191) would have refused the extraction in the hypothetical case vignette. CONCLUSIONS: Nondental requests for extraction are relatively common. Although dentists are reluctant in theory, they are likely to grant such requests in everyday practice, particularly if the patient cannot afford an indicated conservative treatment. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Dentists should keep in mind that they cannot ethically or legally be required to perform an intervention deemed harmful, even if an autonomous patient made the request.

Robot technology in dentistry, part two of a systematic review: an overview of initiatives.

OBJECTIVES: To provide dental practitioners and researchers with a comprehensive and transparent evidence-based overview of physical robot initiatives in all fields of dentistry. DATA: Articles published since 1985 concerning primary data on physical robot technology in dentistry were selected. Characteristics of the papers were extracted such as the respective field of dentistry, year of publication as well as a description of its usage. SOURCES: Bibliographic databases PubMed, Embase, and Scopus were searched. A hand search through reference lists of all included articles was performed. STUDY SELECTION: The search timeline was between January 1985 and October 2020. All types of scientific literature in all languages were included concerning fields of dentistry ranging from student training to implantology. Robot technology solely for the purpose of research and maxillofacial surgery were excluded. In total, 94 articles were included in this systematic review. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a systematic overview of initiatives using robot technology in dentistry since its very beginning. While there were many interesting robot initiatives reported, the overall quality of the literature, in terms of clinical validation, is low. Scientific evidence regarding the benefits, results and cost-efficiency of commercially available robotic solutions in dentistry is lacking. The rise in availability of open source control systems, compliant robot systems and the design of dentistry-specific robot technology might facilitate the process of technological development in the near future. The authors are confident that robotics will provide useful solutions in the future but, strongly, encourage an evidence-based approach when adapting to new (robot) technology.

International validation of novel pyrogen tests based on human monocytoid cells.

It is a requirement that parenteral medicines be tested for pyrogens (fever causing agents) using one of two animal-based tests: the rabbit pyrogen test and the bacterial endotoxin test. Understanding the human fever reaction has led to novel non-animal alternative tests based on in vitro activation of human monocytoid cells in response to pyrogens. Using 13 prototypic drugs, clean or contaminated with pyrogens, we have validated blindly six novel pyrogen tests in ten laboratories. Compared with the rabbit test, the new tests have a lower limit of detection and are more accurate as well as cost and time efficient. In contrast to the bacterial endotoxin test, all tests are able to detect Gram-positive pyrogens. The validation process showed that at least four of the tests meet quality criteria for pyrogen detection. These validated in vitro pyrogen tests overcome several shortcomings of animal-based pyrogen tests. Our data suggest that animal testing could be completely replaced by these evidence-based pyrogen tests and highlight their potential to further improve drug safety.