British Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery最新文献

Evaluating the effectiveness of orthognathic treatment can be difficult. To address this issue, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) have been proposed as valuable instruments for understanding the quality of healthcare from the patients’ standpoint. Therefore, the aim of this project was to employ PROMs and PREMs questionnaires to capture the patients’ perspectives regarding their experience during the orthognathic treatment process, as well as their perception of their postoperative state. Preoperative and postoperative questionnaires were offered to patients at consenting appointment and at various timepoints after the surgery. The assessment of statistical relationships was carried out by means of Fisher’s exact test. A total of 64 preoperative and 126 postoperative responses were received. The primary motivators for pursuing the surgery were the improvement of facial and dental aesthetics, as well as increased satisfaction with photographic and video appearances. These three factors were also cited as the most important postoperative benefits. Of the respondents, 58% reported experiencing altered sensation to the lower lip at the 24-month follow up (p = 0.02); however, the affected patients reported that this did not have an impact on their daily activities. The use of PROMs and PREMs to appraise the quality of life constitutes a valuable method for surgeons to gauge their treatment efficacy. Above all, such tools are particularly useful for evaluating patient satisfaction, which is the ultimate objective of any treatment.

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) have been used as adjuncts to temporomandibular joint (TMJ) arthrocentesis but without any high-quality evidence. This systematic review collated data from published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to provide level-1 evidence on its efficacy. Trials published on the databases of PubMed, Scopus, Embase, CENTRAL, and Web of Science up to 4 August 2023 and comparing intra-articular PRP/PRF with control after TMJ arthrocentesis were eligible. Primary outcomes were pain and maximal mouth opening (MMO). Twelve RCTs were included. Pooled analysis showed that pain scores were significantly reduced with the use of PRP/PRF as compared with control at one month (MD: −0.96 95% CI: −1.58 to −0.35 I² = 86%), three months (MD: −1.22 95% CI: −1.86 to −0.59 I² = 85%), and ≥six months (MD: −1.61 95% CI: −2.22 to −1.00 I² = 88%). Similarly, MMO was significantly improved in the PRP/PRF group at one month (MD: 2.40 95% CI: 1.02 to 3.77 I² = 88%), three months (MD: 3.17 95% CI: 1.63 to 4.72 I² = 91%), and ≥six months (MD: 2.98 95% CI: 1.86 to 4.10 I² = 75%) as compared with the control group. Subgroup analysis for PRP and PRF failed to show any difference in outcomes. Moderate quality evidence suggests that PRP and PRF may significantly improve pain and MMO when used as adjuncts to TMJ arthrocentesis. Due to the small effect size, the clinical significance of the results is questionable. The high heterogeneity in PRP/PRF preparation methods is a significant limitation.

This double-blind, randomised clinical trial aimed to find out whether there is a difference in the prevalence of neurosensory disturbance (NSD) between patients who received 2% lidocaine and those who received 4% articaine during inferior alveolar nerve blocks (IANBs). Patients who underwent third molar extraction were randomised into two groups. IANB was performed using 2% lidocaine in Group 1 and 4% articaine in Group 2. The occurrence of NSD was documented. Patients were visited within 48 hours and one week after the tooth was removed. The type of anaesthetic drug (4% articaine versus 2% lidocaine) was the study’s predictive factor. A total of 2400 patients were studied in two groups (1200 in each group). The mean (range) age of the patients was 28.40 (18–44) years. Five patients (0.41%) in the lidocaine group and seven (0.58%) in the articaine group had NSD after injection (p = 0.77). The prevalence of NSD after IANB was no higher in the articaine group than in the lidocaine group.

Oral focal mucinosis (OFM) is a rare lesion first described in 1974, but the aetiology remains unknown. Clinically, OFM presents as an asymptomatic nodular lesion and the similarity of clinical features to other soft tissue injuries makes the diagnosis difficult. The aim of this study was to integrate the demographic, clinical, and histopathological characteristics from previously published cases of OFM into a systematic review. Electronic searches without publication date restriction were performed in the following databases: Embase, PubMed, Medline, Web of Science, and Scopus. Case reports or case series of OFM published in English and presenting enough clinical and histopathological information were included. This systematic review identified 42 studies from 12 countries, comprising 113 cases of OFM. This lesion affected more females than males, usually in the fourth decade of life. The gingiva was the most common anatomical location, followed by the palate. Clinical presentation was most often an asymptomatic nodule. Imaging exams revealed that most cases did not have bone involvement. Surgical removal was the treatment of choice for most cases and only one recurrent case was reported. In conclusion, OFM is an uncommon pathology, and its diagnosis depends on histopathological analysis. The lesion could be included as a differential diagnosis of benign soft tissue lesions of the oral cavity, especially those affecting the gingiva.