RESUMEN
Background: To ensure optimal exposure and enable precise tissue manipulation, cleft lip and palate abnormalities require surgical repair utilizing retractors. Different retractors may affect surgical outcomes; however, this is not yet evident. Examining surgeon preferences for retractors in cleft lip and palate surgery and assessing their impact on patient outcomes were the goals of this study. Materials and Methods: The patients who underwent primary cleft lip and palate repair were retrospectively analyzed. This study evaluated three widely used retractors: the Langenbeck, Gelpi, and Moult Mouth Gag retractors. This study looked at demographic information, surgical results (including scarring, aesthetic outcomes, and wound healing issues), and surgeon preferences for retractors. Results: The study identified differences in surgical outcomes related to various retractor types. Both Group A (Langenbeck retractor) and Group B (Gelpi retractor) demonstrated similar favorable results, such as little wound healing issues, less scarring, and pleasing cosmetic results. The wound healing issues, scarring, and cosmetic outcomes were all worse in Group C (Moult Mouth Gag retractor). Conclusion: Retractors were not always preferred by surgeons doing cleft lip and palate surgery. The type of retractor had an impact on the surgical results; the Moult Mouth Gag retractor performed less well than the Langenbeck and Gelpi retractors. These results highlight the value of using evidence-based criteria to select retractors more effectively and enhance surgical methods for better patient outcomes in cleft lip and palate repair.
RESUMEN
Objective: This study's goal was to assess the failure rate and peri-implant complications of single-piece implant systems over the course of a one-year follow-up. Materials and Methods: Patient records were examined retrospectively. 150 single-piece dental implants were analyzed. Clinical results, implant features, and demographic information were gathered. Implant failure, which is characterized as the total loss of osseointegration, served as the key outcome indicator. Patient satisfaction and peri-implant problems were secondary outcomes. Data analysis employed descriptive statistics. Results: During the one-year follow-up period, the failure rate for single-piece implant systems was 6.7%. The two main factors leading to implant failure were found to be poor osseointegration (60%) and biomechanical overload (40%). 20% of the cases had peri-implant problems, such as peri-implantitis. 85% of the panelists felt that single-piece implants had satisfied their patients. Conclusion: A 6.7% failure rate in single-piece implant systems was seen in this one-year follow-up investigation. The major causes of implant failure were found to be poor osseointegration and biomechanical loading. In 20% of the cases, peri-implant problems such as peri-implantitis, were noted. There was great patient satisfaction. These results highlight the significance of regulating occlusal forces, optimizing osseointegration, and applying preventive measures to ensure the long-term viability of single-piece implant systems.
RESUMEN
Objective: The purpose of this study was to assess how oral and maxillofacial surgeons used various diagnostic tools for oral cancer. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional methodology was used, and a standardized questionnaire was given to oral and maxillofacial surgeons randomly chosen sample. The questionnaire gathered information on demographics and the use of diagnostic tools. Data analysis methods included Chi-square testing and descriptive statistics. Results: The study included 200 oral and maxillofacial surgeons in total. The most often used diagnostic tool (95%) was visual inspection, followed by toluidine blue staining (48%) and brush biopsy (32%). Less frequently used were newer methods like optical coherence tomography (12.5%) and autofluorescence imaging (15%). No significant correlations between demographic factors and patterns of use of diagnostic tools were found by Chi-square tests. Conclusion: The results show that oral and maxillofacial surgeons frequently use brush biopsy, toluidine blue staining, and ocular evaluation. However, there is a need for more widespread adoption of cutting-edge technologies. By removing obstacles and offering training opportunities, one can increase the use of diagnostic tools, improving patient outcomes and the diagnosis of oral cancer.