Evaluation of the xerostomia, taste and smell impairments after Covid-19 / Evaluación de la xerostomía, alteraciones del gusto y del olfato tras el Covid-19

Background: The purpose of this study was to explore the effects of coronavirus disease 19 (Covid-19) on the oralcavity by evaluating the oral findings in the patients who recovered after treatment.Material and Methods: This study involved confirmed Covid-19 patients whose treatment completed at least twoweeks ago. A questionnaire consist of eight parts was applied to explore the oral findings after Covid-19. Alsostimulated salivary flow rate was evaluated with a salivary flow test.Results: 177 patients reached and 107 of them participate in the study. Regarding gender significant differenceswere found in terms of the presence of taste impairment after treatment (p=0.007), the degree of taste (p=0.021)and smell (p=0.010) impairment. 18 % (5/27) of the patients evaluated were showed hyposalivation. No significantdifferences were observed regarding salivary flow between males (mean±SD: 1.14±0.65) and females (mean±SD:1.12±0.43), (p=0.928); among the patients having treatment at home (mean±SD: 1.03±0.48) or hospital (mean±SD:1.33±0.65), (p=0.187). In some of the patients’ taste [15], smell [23] impairment, and xerostomia [43] still observedat least two weeks after the treatment is completed.Conclusions: The most frequent finding in patients after the treatment was xerostomia. Taste and smell impair-ments were more frequently observed in females.(AU)

Prevalence of impacted premolars in a Turkish population andconsiderations for surgical treatment

Objective: The aim of this study was to identify the prevalence, associated pathology and symptoms, and treatmentof impacted premolars in a Turkish population.Study Design: This retrospective study examined panoramic radiographs and clinical records of 9,000 patientswho presented consecutively at our oral and maxillofacial surgery clinics between January 1998 and January2009. In addition to demographic data (patient sex and age), data was compiled on the number and location ofimpacted missing maxillary and mandibular premolars, retained deciduous molars, associated pathologies andsymptoms, and treatment methods.Results: A total of 105 impacted maxillary or mandibular premolars were observed in 93 patients (1.03%). Ofthese, 48 (51.6%) were female (age range: 13-57 years) and 45 (43.4%) were male (age range: 13-58 years). Impactedmandibular second premolars accounted for 55.2% (n=58) of all impacted premolars. Migration was observedin only 11.83% of patients (n=11). Pathological changes and symptoms were noted in 15.05% of patients.Conclusion: Our results suggest that the prophylactic extraction of non-migrated impacted premolars may not benecessary. If the patient is cooperative, a “wait and see” approach may be preferable. Orthodontic or prosthetictreatment options should also be considered when planning treatment of non-migrated impacted premolars. Migratedimpacted premolars should be kept under observation and should only be removed if they are associatedwith pathology or if extraction is required for prosthetic or orthodontic treatment (AU)

No disponible

Prevalence of impacted premolars in a Turkish population and considerations for surgical treatment.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify the prevalence, associated pathology and symptoms, and treatment of impacted premolars in a Turkish population. STUDY DESIGN: This retrospective study examined panoramic radiographs and clinical records of 9,000 patients who presented consecutively at our oral and maxillofacial surgery clinics between January 1998 and January 2009. In addition to demographic data (patient sex and age), data was compiled on the number and location of impacted missing maxillary and mandibular premolars, retained deciduous molars, associated pathologies and symptoms, and treatment methods. RESULTS: A total of 105 impacted maxillary or mandibular premolars were observed in 93 patients (1.03%). Of these, 48 (51.6%) were female (age range: 13-57 years) and 45 (43.4%) were male (age range: 13-58 years). Impacted mandibular second premolars accounted for 55.2% (n=58) of all impacted premolars. Migration was observed in only 11.83% of patients (n=11). Pathological changes and symptoms were noted in 15.05% of patients. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that the prophylactic extraction of non-migrated impacted premolars may not be necessary. If the patient is cooperative, a "wait and see " approach may be preferable. Orthodontic or prosthetic treatment options should also be considered when planning treatment of non-migrated impacted premolars. Migrated impacted premolars should be kept under observation and should only be removed if they are associated with pathology or if extraction is required for prosthetic or orthodontic treatment.