Potential role of active decompression with distraction sugosteogenesis for the management of odontogenic cystic lesions: a retrospective review of 10 cases.

PURPOSE: The aim of this paper is to describe active decompression and distraction sugosteogenesis as an alternative for the management of odontogenic cystic lesions. The technique, demographics, success rate, and complications will be presented. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective case series study design was implemented. This included patients found in our database from 2015 to 2018 with a diagnosis of any odontogenic cyst, in whom active decompression with distraction sugosteogenesis was implemented. The patient's medical history, demographics, radiographic characteristics of the cyst, technique/device employed, complications, and rate of success were recorded. RESULTS: The sample consisted of 10 patients, with a mean age of 19.6 years (range 14-34). Sixty percent of all cases occurred in male patients and 40% in females. Forty percent of cases were consistent with odontogenic keratocysts with all cysts presenting in the mandible. No maxillary cases were documented. Seventy percent of such lesions were unilocular and 30% multilocular. Cortical fenestration/perforation was documented in 30% of cases and 1 pathologic fracture was seen. Active decompression was performed for an average of 37 days (range 30-50 days). With this system, radiographic resolution occurred in 1-3 months in 50% of cases, 6-12 months in 30% of cases, and 12 months in 20% of cases. Mean follow-up was 24.3 months. No recurrence was documented. Complications included fistula development (2 cases), flap dehiscence (1 case), and the size of the intraoral unit. CONCLUSIONS: This investigation reviewed the authors' 5-year experience employing active decompression with distraction sugosteogenesis for the management of odontogenic cystic lesions and showed that this is a reliable alternative for the management of odontogenic cysts.

Evaluación de la microdureza superficial en cemento de resina autoadhesiva, utilizando tres sistemas diferentes de mezclado / Evaluation of surface microhardness in self-adhesive resin cement, using three different mixing systems

La presente investigación evaluó el índice de microdureza en cementos de resina de curado dual utilizando la prueba de microdureza de Vickers; El material utilizado fue Rely X Unicem Aplicap ™ (3M-ESPE) para el cual se utilizaron tres sistemas de mezcla diferentes: ESPE RotoMix ™ (3M-ESPE), Amalga Mix (GNATUS) y el amalgamador Z1-A (ZENITH); También utilizamos Rely X Unicem U100 ™ (3M-ESPE) mezclado a mano. Se formaron 4 grupos con 15 cuerpos de prueba cada uno, autocurados. Una vez polimerizados los cuerpos de ensayo, se marcó la superficie superior (superficie en contacto directo con el medio externo) y se almacenó en su respectivo grupo sobre papel de aluminio en un recipiente seco y oscuro a prueba de luz durante 48 horas, con el objetivo de evitar sobrepolimerización y contacto con otras sustancias que puedan alterar el valor de microdureza. Para obtener los valores de microdureza, se realizó el ensayo de microdureza Vickers, el cual se realizó mediante el Microhardness Tester Micromet® 2001 (Buehler) con una carga de 200 gramos / fuerza durante 15 segundos para cada superficie. En el análisis estadístico se realizaron dos pruebas: Análisis de Varianza (ANOVA) y prueba de Tukey en la que se demostraron diferencias estadísticas entre el sistema ESPE RotoMix ™ con el amalgamador Z1-A (ZENITH, no hay diferencia significativa entre las demás (Amalga Mezclar y Rely X Unicem U100 ™) Con los resultados obtenidos, se concluyó que el cemento de resina de curado dual Rely X Unicem Aplicap ™ obtuvo mejores resultados al ser mezclado con el sistema Z1-A (ZENITH).

The present investigation evaluated the microhardness index in dual cure resin cements using the Vickers microhardness test; The material used was Rely X Unicem Aplicap ™ (3M-ESPE) for which three different mixing systems were used: ESPE RotoMix ™ (3M-ESPE), Amalga Mix (GNATUS) and the amalgamator Z1-A (ZENITH); We also use Rely X Unicem U100 ™ (3M-ESPE) mixed by hand. 4 groups were formed with 15 test bodies each, self-cured. Once the test bodies had been polymerized, the top surface (surface in direct contact with the external environment) was marked and stored in their respective group on aluminum foil in a dry and dark light-proof container for 48 hours, with the objective of avoid overpolymerization and contact with other substances that may alter the microhardness value. To obtain the microhardness values, the Vickers microhardness test was carried out, which was carried out through the Micromet® 2001 Microhardness Tester (Buehler) with a load of 200 grams / force for 15 seconds for each surface. In the statistical analysis, two tests were performed: Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's test in which statistical differences were demonstrated between the ESPE RotoMix ™ system with the Z1-A amalgamator (ZENITH, there is no significant difference among the others (Amalga Mix and Rely X Unicem U100 ™) With the results obtained, it was concluded that the dual curing resin cement Rely X Unicem Aplicap ™ obtained better results when mixed with the Z1-A (ZENITH) system.