ABSTRACT
Background: Traditionally bur has been used to carry out osteotomy. In a developing country like India, the cost of surgical treatment is the important factor in determining treatment plan. Although the use of bur is cost-effective and efficient, with the advent of newer technology, it is getting replaced with a saw. Aim: To evaluate and compare the use of reciprocating saw and bur in Le Fort I Osteotomy for superior repositioning of the maxilla. Materials and Methods: Patients referred from the Department of Orthodontics for the surgical correction of vertical maxillary excess (VME). They were divided into two groups. In group I, osteotomy was performed with Synthes Reciprocating Saw and in group II, bur was used. The parameters recorded in both the groups were time required for the completion of down-fracture, precision of the osteotomy cut (margins of the cut), and ease of superior repositioning. Data was collected from both the groups for comparison. Results: A total of 14 patients with VME were included in the study. They were divided into two groups. Seven study participants were allotted to each group. In group I, Synthes Reciprocating Saw was used while in group II, a bur was used to carry out the osteotomy cut. In group I, the average time required to complete the down-fracture of the maxilla was 3.5-4 min while in group II it was more than 8 min. The margins of the osteotomy cut were smooth and regular and there was bone-to-bone contact during superior repositioning in Group I. Conclusion: The combination of the use of a saw for inferior osteotomy and a bur for the superior cut would be more beneficial in the superior repositioning of the maxilla.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Stress is an integral part of life. Anxiety levels may increase when it comes to being treated surgically due to road traffic accidents causing facial trauma, other pathologies or burns. The stress that is caused during a surgical procedure as well as during the treatment in debilitated patients or traumatic conditions is bound to cause disturbance in the metabolic and physiologic levels of cortisol. Therefore, a study was carried out to determine the cortisol levels just prior to surgery on the day of operation to quantify the stress levels and also aid in any preanesthetic medication changes for the patient undergoing maxillofacial surgery. AIM: To evaluate and compare pre-surgical serum cortisol levels in patients undergoing major maxillofacial surgery under general anaesthesia. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the serum cortisol level of patient 3 days prior to surgery, on the day of surgery and to compare and evaluate the difference seen in both the obtained values. METHODS: A prospective, randomized, in- vivo study was carried out in the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery at a teaching dental hospital. A total of 32 patients were included in this study. Inclusion and Exculsion criteria was made along with pre-opertive assessment of the patient, informed consent was obtained from all patients involved in the study. Patient blood sample, at 8 am three days prior to surgery and on the day of surgery and sent for laboratory investigations. RESULT: Participants in this clinical study underwent treatment of various ailments like facial trauma, and miscellaneous pathologies like Dentigerous Cyst, Oral submucosa fibrosis, Osteomyelitis, Benign Tumor and Orthognathic surgery. The anxiety of the patients were assessed by serum cortisol level preoperatively and on the day of operation. A total of 32 patients, 26 male and 06 female were included in the study. There was statistically highly significant difference seen between the mean values obtained three days prior to surgery and on the day of surgery. CONCLUSION: We have concluded from this study that the serum cortisol level shows significant increase on the day of surgery. A future study can focus on association between increased levels of serum cortisol and postoperative wound healing where patients can be divided into two groups one receiving pre-operative stress reduction protocol and other not receiving the same.
ABSTRACT
This study evaluated and compared the donor site morbidity following minimally invasive and conventional open harvesting of iliac bone for secondary alveolar bone grafting in cleft palate patients. A thorough electronic search of PubMed, Google Scholar, EMBASE, and an institutional library and manual search of various journals was done; Inclusion criteria: 1) full-text articles using a minimally invasive or conventional open harvesting technique for iliac bone for secondary alveolar grafting in cleft palate patients and 2) articles published between January 1, 2001 and June 30, 2017 and Exclusion criteria: 1) articles published in languages other than English, 2) case reports, case series, animal studies, in vitro studies, and letters to the editor, and 3) full-text article unavailable even after writing to the authors. Preliminary screening of 274 studies excluded 223 studies for not meeting the eligibility criteria. Of the remaining 51 studies, 19 were removed for being duplicates. Of the remaining 32 studies, 15 were excluded after reading the abstract. Of the 17 studies that were left, 2 were excluded because they were in a language other than English, and 2 were excluded because the study group did not mention cleft palate patients. Thus, 13 studies providing results for a total of 654 patients were included in this qualitative synthesis. Minimally invasive bone graft harvest techniques are better than the conventional open iliac bone harvest method because they offer shorter operative time, decreased requirement for pain medications, less pain on discharge, and a shorter hospital stay.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Pain is an unpleasant sensation ranging from mild localized discomfort to agony and is one of the most commonly experienced symptoms in oral surgery. Usually, local anesthetic agents and analgesics are used for pain control in oral surgical procedures. Local anesthetic agents including lignocaine and bupivacaine are routinely used in varying concentrations. The present study was designed to evaluate and compare the efficacy of 0.25% and 0.5% bupivacaine for postoperative analgesia in infraorbital nerve block. METHODS: Forty-one patients undergoing bilateral maxillary orthodontic extraction received 0.5% bupivacaine (n = 41) on one side and 0.25% bupivacaine (n = 41) on the other side at an interval of 7 d. The parameters evaluated for both the bupivacaine concentrations were onset of action, pain during procedure (visual analog scale score [VAS]), and duration of action. The results were noted, tabulated, and analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. RESULTS: The onset of action of 0.5% bupivacaine was quicker than that of 0.25% bupivacaine, but the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.306). No significant difference was found between the solutions for VAS scores (P = 0.221) scores and duration of action (P = 0.662). CONCLUSION: There was no significant difference between 0.25% bupivacaine and 0.5% bupivacaine in terms of onset of action, pain during procedure, and duration of action. The use of 0.25% bupivacaine is recommended.
