RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: The study investigated the association between intraocular pressure changes and clinical ocular signs in 51 patients with orbitozygomatic complex fractures. Diplopia, chemosis, enophthalmos, subconjunctival haemorrhage, periorbital ecchymosis and extraocular muscles entrapment were assessed. STUDY DESIGN: Intraocular pressure was measured in mmHg at different time intervals with Perkins and Goldman tonometers; within first 3 days of injury (T1), 24 h post-elevation within 3-14 days of injury (T2), 1 month after initial treatment assessment (T3), 2 months after initial treatment assessment (T4), and 3 months after initial treatment assessment (T5). Intraocular pressure changes between T2/T1 and T3/T1 were analysed as change 1 and change 2, respectively, with paired t test. Significance was set at p < 0.05. RESULTS: Minimum intraocular pressure recorded in the affected eye was 5 mmHg at T1 and T2, while maximum intraocular pressure was 28 mmHg at T1. Mean intraocular pressure at T1 and T2 was 15.90 ± 4.73 mmHg and 16.80 ± 4.43 mmHg, respectively. All eye signs had completely resolved at T3 except enophthalmos, which persisted till T5. Statistical significant relationship exist between orbitozygomatic complex fracture and enophthalmos (T1: p = 0.04). subconjunctival haemorrhage (T2: p = 0.003), periorbital ecchymosis (T2: p = 0.005),and T3: p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Chemosis, diplopia, enophthalmos, periorbital ecchymosis and subconjunctival haemorrhage showed positive contributory effect to intraocular pressure elevation in orbitozygomatic complex fracture.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: This investigation assesses the effect of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) gel on postoperative pain, swelling, and trismus as well as healing and bone regeneration potential on mandibular third molar extraction sockets. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A prospective randomized comparative clinical study was undertaken over a 2-year period. Patients requiring surgical extraction of a single impacted third molar and who fell within the inclusion criteria and indicated willingness to return for recall visits were recruited. The predictor variable was application of PRP gel to the socket of the third molar in the test group, whereas the control group had no PRP. The outcome variables were pain, swelling, and maximum mouth opening, which were measured using a 10-point visual analog scale, tape, and millimeter caliper, respectively. Socket healing was assessed radiographically by allocating scores for lamina dura, overall density, and trabecular pattern. Quantitative data were presented as mean. Mann-Whitney test was used to compare means between groups for continuous variables, whereas Fischer exact test was used for categorical variables. Statistical significance was inferred at P < .05. RESULTS: Sixty patients aged 19 to 35 years (mean: 24.7 ± 3.6 years) were divided into both test and control groups of 30 patients each. The mean postoperative pain score (visual analog scale) was lower for the PRP group at all time points and this was statistically significant (P < .05). Although the figures for swelling and interincisal mouth opening were lower in the test group, this difference was not statistically significant. Similarly, the scores for lamina dura, trabecular pattern, and bone density were better among patients in the PRP group. This difference was also not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: The PRP group recorded reduced pain, swelling, and trismus as well as enhanced and faster bone healing compared with those in the control. Hence the study showed that topical application of PRP gel has a beneficial effect in enhancing socket healing after third molar surgery.