ABSTRACT
Background/purpose: No consensus has been established regarding the exact amount of bone grafting in maxillary sinus augmentation. The aim of this study was to estimate the minimum bone volume for sinus augmentation and to investigate the factors that influence the augmentation volume (AV). Materials and methods: This study included patients with cone-beam computed tomography scanning. Dome-shaped sinus augmentation was performed virtually at vertical heights (VH) of 3, 5, 7, and 9 mm in Group A (without implantation) and Group B (with implantation). The augmentation angle (AA) and the sinus width (SW) were measured. The AV was measured using the three-dimensional image processing program 3D Slicer. Univariable and multivariable analyses were conducted. Results: This study included 30 patients (120 subjects). In Group A, the mean AVs were 0.062, 0.271, 0.642, and 1.287 cc at VHs of 3, 5, 7, and 9 mm, respectively, in Group B, the mean AVs were 0.037, 0.230, 0.594, and 1.230 cc. Univariable analysis indicated that factors significantly associated with the AV in both groups included SW, AA, and VH (P < 0.001). Multivariable analysis indicated that factors significantly associated with the AV in both groups included AA and VH (P < 0.01). Conclusion: Clinicians can predict the bone volume for sinus augmentation by measuring the augmentation height and angle.
ABSTRACT
Objectives: To compare the vital sign stability and cost of two commonly used sedatives, midazolam (MDZ) and dexmedetomidine (DEX). Patients and. Methods: This retrospective study targeted patients who underwent mandibular third molar extractions under intravenous sedation using MDZ or DEX. The predictor variable was the type of sedative used. The primary outcome variables were vital signs (heart rate and blood pressure), vital sign outliers, and cost of the sedatives. A vital sign outlier was defined as a 30% or more change in vital signs during sedation; the fewer changes, the higher the vital sign stability. The secondary outcome variables included the observer's assessment of alertness/sedation scale, level of amnesia, patient satisfaction, and bispectral index score. Covariates were sex, age, body mass index, sleeping time, dental anxiety score, and Pederson scale. Descriptive statistics were computed including propensity score matching (PSM). The P-value was set at 0.05. Results: The study enrolled 185 patients, 103 in the MDZ group and 82 in the DEX group. Based on the data after PSM, the two samples had similar baseline covariates. The sedative effect of both agents was satisfactory. Heart rate outliers were more common with MDZ than with DEX (49.3% vs 22.7%, P=0.001). Heart rate was higher with MDZ (P=0.000). The cost was higher for DEX than for MDZ (29.27±0.00 USD vs 0.37±0.04 USD, P=0.000). Conclusion: DEX showed more vital sign stability, while MDZ was more economical. These results could be used as a reference to guide clinicians during sedative selection.