Treatment strategies for periodontitis patients with systemic disease.

Periodontitis is a chronic inflammatory disease that destroys the integrity of tooth-supporting tissue. Periodontitis is listed as a major oral disease by the World Health Organization and is a public-health problem affecting global oral and systemic health. The fourth national oral health epidemiological survey has revealed that periodontitis is one of the most common oral problems in China. With the development of science and medicine, increased attention is being paid to the importance of oral health and its influence on general health. Accordingly, stomatologists are required to master more relevant information on clinical diagnosis and treatment, as well as to pay more attention to the diagnosis and treatment methods of patients with different systemic diseases. This article expounds the diagnosis and treatment strategy of patients with systemic disease periodontitis. We aimed to help stomatologists make more reasonable diagnosis and treatment decisions.

Comparison of outcomes between single- and multiple-perforator-based free perforator flaps: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Perforator-based free perforator flaps have become an important tool for the reconstruction of tissue defects. The effect of the number of perforators on the outcomes of perforator flaps has been widely debated. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of single- and multiple-perforator-based free perforator flaps in free-flap reconstruction. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Chinese BioMedical Literature Database (CBM), Cochrane Library, and clinicaltrials.gov between January 2000 and June 2021 to identify studies that reported data on the outcomes of free perforator flaps. Two authors individually extracted data and performed quality assessment. Outcomes, including partial flap loss, total loss, fat necrosis, arterial insufficiency, venous insufficiency, hemorrhage and hematoma, wound dehiscence at recipient sites and donor site complications, were evaluated. RESULTS: Thirty-two studies with 2498 flaps were included in our analysis. No significant difference was found in the rates of partial loss and arterial insufficiency of flaps, hemorrhage and hematoma, wound dehiscence at recipient sites and donor site complications. However, the multiple-perforator group showed significantly lower rates of total loss (relative risk [RR] = 1.08, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.78-1.79, p = .754), fat necrosis (RR = 1.79, 95% [CI]: 1.36-2.36, p = .000) and venous insufficiency (RR = 1.72, 95% CI: 1.07-2.79, p = .026) than the single-perforator group. CONCLUSION: The rates of total loss, fat necrosis and venous insufficiency in the multiple-perforator group were lower than those in the single-perforator group. Hence, we recommend that multiple perforators be included in the free perforator flap when appropriate, to yield better clinical outcomes in reconstruction.

Risk Factors for Free Flap Outcomes: A Retrospective Study of 318 Free Flaps for Head and Neck Defect Reconstruction.

OBJECTIVES: This study was conducted to identify the risk factors for free flap outcomes in head and neck reconstruction. METHODS: A retrospective review of 318 free flaps were used for head and neck reconstructions in 317 patients over seven years. The patient characteristics, surgical data, and flap outcomes were recorded. The impact of risk factors related on the outcomes of free flaps were analyzed using single and multivariate analysis. RESULTS: For single factor analysis, 295 free flaps for the first reconstruction were included. Hypertension and the type of recipient vein are associated with venous thrombosis (P = .018, P = .047). Hypertension, type of free flap, recipient artery, and recipient vein were associated with the incidence of re-exploration (P = .009, P = .011, P = .017, P = .021). Hypertension had an obvious effect on the flap survival (P = .005). For multivariate analysis, hypertension (odds ratio = .166, 95% confidence interval: .043 - .636; P = .009) was a statistically significant risk factor for flap survival. For types of recipient artery and vein, selecting two venous anastomosis (one of IJVS and one of EJVS) had the minimum incidence of venous thrombosis (2.2%), and selecting facial artery, single vein (one of IJVS), and two veins (one of IJVS and one of EJVS) for anastomosis had lower incidence of re-exploration, which were 4.4%, 2.9%, and 6.0%, respectively (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Risk factors as hypertension, type of free flap, recipient artery and vein should be paid more attention in the free flaps for head and neck reconstructions. We believe proper measures will lead to better results in head and neck reconstruction.

Magnitude of radial forearm free flaps and factors associated with loss of volume in oral cancer reconstructive surgery: Prospective study.

BACKGROUND: Adequate flap volume is key to maintaining oral function after oral cancer surgery. This study aimed to evaluate changes in radial forearm free flap (RFFF) volumes after 1 year of follow-up following ablative tumor surgery in the head and neck. METHODS: A prospective study that recorded the clinical data of 20 patients with head and neck cancer who underwent RFFF reconstruction. Magnetic resonance (MR) and Mimics Research 19.0 software were used to measure the RFFF volumes at 1, 3, 6, and 12 postoperative months. RESULTS: Compared with one postoperative month, the RFFF volume decreased by 15.5%, 29.4%, and 42.0% at 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively, after surgery. A significant positive correlation between postoperative radiotherapy and RFFF volume changes was detected. CONCLUSION: The volume of RFFF decreases with time. It is recommended to use overcorrection, with a 40% increase in RFFF volume, to reconstruct head and neck tumor-related defects.

The Effect of Medial Sural Artery Perforator Flap on Reconstruction of Soft Tissue Defects: A Meta-Analysis With Multiple Free Soft Flaps.

BACKGROUND: With the gradual popularity of relatively novel medial sural artery perforator flap (MSAPF), robust studies are needed to compare the surgical outcomes of MSAPF versus multiple free soft flaps (MFSFs) to verify the advantages and disadvantages of MSAPF. METHODS: The authors searched PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Chinese BioMedical Literature Database (CBM), and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) until September, 2020, to identify studies that compared surgical outcomes of MSAPF and MFSFs. Two authors followed the PRISMA guidelines, individually extracted the data and performed the quality assessments. Survival rate of flaps, satisfaction degree of patients in recipient and donor site, skin grafting, and morbidity of recipient and donor site were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 441 cases from 7 studies were included in our analysis. No significant differences were found regarding survival rate of flaps, recipient morbidity, and recipient satisfaction degree between the 2 groups. However, MSAPF group was significantly superior to MFSFs group in terms of skin grafting, morbidity, and satisfaction degree of donor site. CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis showed that the MSPAF and MFSFs groups were similar in terms of survival rate of flaps, recipient morbidity, and recipient satisfaction degree. Medial sural artery perforator flap group was superior to MFSFs group in terms of morbidity and satisfaction degree of donor site. The results may prove that MSAPF is gaining popularity for a reason and is a good choice for repairing soft tissue defects.

Comparison of donor site complications of supra- versus subfascially harvested anterolateral thigh perforator free flaps: A meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the complications at the donor site of supra- versus subfascially harvested anterolateral thigh perforator free flaps. METHOD: We searched PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, the Chinese BioMedical Literature Database (CBM) and the Cochrane Library until December 31, 2018, to identify studies that compared complications at the donor site of the supra- versus subfascially raised anterolateral thigh perforator free flaps. Two authors individually extracted the data and performed the quality assessments. Skin grafting, the rate of poor healing in the donor site, dysfunction at the donor site and sensory functions at the donor site were evaluated. RESULT: Seven studies with a total of 525 patients were included in our analysis. No significant differences were found regarding skin grafting and sensory functions between the 2 groups. However, in regard to the rate of poor healing and dysfunction at the donor site, the SPF group showed significantly better outcomes than the SBF group after the operation. CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis suggested that, in regards to skin grafting and sensory recovery, the SPF and SBF groups were similar. With regard to donor site healing and functional recovery, the SPF group exhibited better outcomes than the SBF group.

Comparison of Internal Jugular Vein System Anastomosis and External Jugular Vein System Anastomosis in Free Flaps for Head and Neck Reconstruction: A Meta-Analysis.

PURPOSE: The purpose of the present study was to investigate the differences in postoperative thrombosis and flap failure between internal jugular vein (IJV) system anastomosis and external jugular vein (EJV) system anastomosis in free flaps for the reconstruction of head and neck defects. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Chinese BioMedical Literature Database, and other databases until March 2019 for studies that had reported data for anastomosis for the 2 different venous systems in the microvascular free-flap reconstruction of head and neck defects. We assessed thrombosis and flap failure in patients undergoing anastomosis of the IJV system and patients undergoing anastomosis of the EJV system. RESULTS: Nine studies with a total of 2051 patients with venous anastomosis were included in the present meta-analysis. IJV system anastomosis showed a significantly lower incidence of venous thrombosis than did the EJV system (relative risk [RR], 0.55; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37 to 0.82). Eight studies were included in the analysis of the flap failure rate, which showed a lower failure rate for the IJV system anastomosis than for the EJV system (RR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.35 to 1.00). CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of thrombosis and flap failure after venous anastomosis in the IJV system was lower than that in the EJV system. The results from the present study have shown that the IJV system should be the first choice for venous anastomosis in the reconstruction of free flaps.