Search

For patients diagnosed with advanced malignant parotid tumour, radical parotidectomy with facial nerve sacrifice is part of the treatment. Multiple surgical techniques have been developed to cure facial paralysis in order to restore the function and aesthetics of the face. Despite the large number of publications over time on facial nerve reanimation, a consensus on the timing of the procedure or the donor graft selection has remained to be established. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to conduct a bibliometric analysis to identify and analyse scientific publications on the reconstruction of the facial nerve of patients who underwent radical parotidectomy with facial nerve sacrifice. The analysis on the topic was conducted using the built-in tool of the Scopus database and VOSviewer software. The first 100 most cited articles were separately reviewed to address the aim of the study. No consensus was found regarding the recommended surgical techniques for facial nerve reanimation. The most used donor cranial nerves for transfer included the following: Masseteric branch of the V nerve, contralateral VII nerve with cross-face graft, the XI nerve and the XII nerve. The best timing of surgery is also controversial depending on pre-exiting pathology and degree of nerve degeneration. However, most of the clinical experience suggests facial nerve restoration immediately after the ablative procedure to reduce complications and improve patients' quality of life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of the present systematic review was to compare three ridge augmentation procedures in order to assist clinicians in finding the ideal surgical method relative to the horizontal bone gain needed and the width of the alveolar ridge available. An electronic and hand literature search was performed in the online databases PubMed-Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register and Web of Science, and various specialized journals, between January 2017 and December 2022. The included studies were evaluated using the Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies score and Cochrane's RoB tool. The primary variable studied in the meta-analysis was the final bone gain. The implant survival rate and initial ridge width were the secondary variables. Then four studies on ridge expansion via osseodensification (OD), seven on guided bone regeneration (GBR) and seven on the ridge-split technique (RS) were included in the review; 17 out of 18 were selected for meta-analysis. The mean horizontal bone gain for OD was 2.151 mm [1.327-2.975 mm; 95% confidence interval (CI)], for GBR was 4.036 mm (3.351-4.772 mm 95%CI) and for RS was 3.661 mm (2.991-4.399 mm 95%CI). The results were statistically significant (P=0.002). GBR reported the most bone gain horizontally, followed closely by RS and then OD. OD is a recent technique that should be taken into account when discussing the protocols of horizontally atrophied ridge rehabilitation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]