ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Maxillary distraction may be used to treat severe maxillary hypoplasia in cleft lip and palate (CLP) patients. Three-dimensional (3D) planning has been shown to increase the accuracy of distraction and reduce operative time and complications. The aim of the study was to measure the accuracy of internal maxillary distraction after 3D planning in CLP patients, to add evidence to validate the virtual osteotomy and distraction procedure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eleven CLP patients with severe maxillary hypoplasia underwent maxillary distraction using internal distractors. Virtual planning was used to design the osteotomies, the distractor position, and the distraction vector. Cutting and positioning guides transferred this information to the surgical procedure. Four to six month postoperative computed tomography-scan was done before distractor removal; anatomical reference points were compared to the virtual planning to determine accuracy. RESULTS: A high accuracy (point dislocation <1.5 mm) was found in 90% of the points of the surface of the maxilla; the majority of the zygomatic screws were placed within a distance of 0.8-1 mm from their planned position. DISCUSSION: The high accuracy achieved through virtual planning promotes optimal distractor placement; a customized distraction vector has a direct effect on the final position of the maxilla.
ABSTRACT
Objetivo. Valorar si existe una diferencia significativa en tasa de infección tras cirugía de extracción dentaria en dos hospitales de Noruega y España, donde se aplican protocolos de profilaxis quirúrgica diferentes. Material y Métodos. Se realizó un estudio observacional analítico, tipo cohortes retrospectivo, analizando pacientes sanos, sin factores de riesgo, operados de tercer molar incluido en los servicios de maxilofacial de dos hospitales diferentes: St. Olav de Trondheim (Noruega) y Clínico San Carlos de Madrid (España). Se recogieron las variables: edad, número de piezas extraídas, tipo de anestesia, y observaciones recogidas en la historia clínica sobre el curso de la operación. Para valorar el desarrollo infección postoperatoria se recogieron los datos de los pacientes que escogieron el hospital como lugar de retirada de los puntos en el Hospital St. Olav, y en el Hospital Clínico San Carlos se llevó a cabo una encuesta telefónica para conocer el curso de la operación meses después. Resultados. El 11,1% de los pacientes operados en el Hospital St. Olav recibió pauta antibiótica durante una semana tras la operación, mientras que en el Hospital Clínico San Carlos fue del 100%. La tasa de infección tras ésta fue del 15% en el Hospital de St. Olav y del 7,5% en el Hospital Clínico siendo estas diferencias no estadísticamente significativas. Conclusiones. La administración sistemática de antibiótico a pacientes sanos sin factores de riesgo sometidos a extracción quirúrgica del tercer molar retenido es una práctica rutinaria en clínica que no parece estar justificada (AU)
Objective. To assess whether there is a significant difference in infection rate after surgery tooth extraction in two different hospitals from Norway and Spain where different surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis protocols are applied. Methods. An analytical observational study was conducted, retrospective cohorts type, analyzing healthy patients with no risk factors, who were third molar tooth operated in maxillofacial services of two different hospitals: St. Olav in Trondheim (Norway) and Clínico San Carlos in Madrid (Spain). The collected variables were: age, number of tooth removed, anesthesia type, and observations about the course of the operation registered in the clinical history. To assess the development of postoperative infection, patients data of those who chose the hospital as the place to remove the suture thread were collected in Norway, whereas in Spain a telephone survey was conducted to determine the course of the operation months later. Results. In St. Olav Hospital 11.1% of patients operated received antibiotic regimen after surgery, while in Hospital San Carlos were 100%. The infection rate was 15% in St.Olav Hospital and 7.5% in Hospital San Carlos. These differences were no statistically significant. Conclusions. The routine administration of antibiotics to healthy patients with no risk factors undergoing impacted third molar surgical removal is a common clinical practice which it does not seem to be justified (AU)
