Search

Maxillofacial ballistic trauma represents a devastating functional and aesthetic trauma. The extensive damage to soft and hard tissue is unpredictable, and because of the diversity and the complexity of these traumas, a systematic algorithm is essential. This study attempts to define the best management of maxillofacial ballistic injuries and to describe a standardized, surgical and prosthetic rehabilitation protocol from the first emergency stage up until the complete aesthetic and functional rehabilitation. In low-velocity ballistic injuries (bullet speed 600 m/s) are associated with an extensive hard and soft tissue disruption, and the management should be based on a three-stage reconstructive algorithm: debridement and fixation, reconstruction, and final revision. Rehabilitating a patient with ballistic trauma is a multi-step challenging treatment procedure that requires a long time and a multidisciplinary team to ensure successful results. The prosthodontic treatment outcome is one of the most important parameters by which a patient measures the restoration of aesthetic, functional, and psychological deficits. This study is a retrospective review: twenty-two patients diagnosed with outcomes of ballistic traumas were identified from the department database, and eleven patients met the inclusion criteria and were enrolled.

Background: Recent articles have hypothesized a possible correlation between dental implants dissolution products and peri-implantitis. The null hypothesis tested in this case-control study was that there would be no differences in salivary concentrations of titanium (Ti), vanadium (V), nickel (Ni) and arsenic (As) ions among patients with dental implants, healthy (Group A) or affected by peri-implantitis (Group B), compared to subjects without implants and/or metallic prosthetic restorations (Group C). Methods: Inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry was used to analyze saliva samples. One-way repeated-measure analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to identify statistically significant differences in the salivary level of Ti, V, Ni and As between the three groups. Results: A total of 100 patients were enrolled in the study (42 males and 58 females), distributed in three groups: 50 patients in Group C, 26 patients in Group B and 24 patients Group B. In our study, concentrations of metallic ions were higher in Group A and B, compared to the control group, with the exception of vanadium. However, there were no statistically significant differences (p &gt, 0.05) for metallic ions concentrations between Group A and Group B. Conclusions: Based on our results, there are no differences in titanium or other metals concentrations in saliva of patients with healthy or diseased implants.