Search

Purpose: Healing of the inferior border of the mandible can be compromised in large advancements, leaving an unesthetic defect at the inferior border. The objective of this study was to compare different bilateral sagittal split osteotomy (BSSO) techniques to prevent the incidence of lower border mandibular defects., Materials and Methods: The authors undertook a retrospective multicenter cohort study comparing 3 BSSO techniques for advancements greater than 5 mm: traditional non-grafted BSSO (group A), traditional grafted BSSO (group B), and modified BSSO (group C). The space created by the mandibular advancement was measured. The presence or absence of a defect was determined 1 year after surgery by clinical and radiographic assessment. The bone defect outcome was associated with potential risk predictors (age, gender, side of SSO, and magnitude of mandibular advancement) by logistic regression analysis., Results: A total of 1,002 operative sites in 501 patients were included in the study. Age (mean, 26.8 yr; standard deviation, 11 yr), gender (310 female, 191 male), and mandibular advancement (right, 9.3 mm; left, 10 mm) were similar among groups (P > .05). The proportions of postsurgical lower border mandibular defects were 54.5% in group A, 1.3% in group B, and 10.6% in group C. The traditional grafted and modified BSSO techniques were significantly more effective in preventing the incidence of mandibular lower border defects compared with the traditional non-grafted BSSO technique (P < .05)., Conclusion: Surgeons are advised that the traditional non-grafted BSSO technique produces a large proportion of mandibular lower border defects. Use of bone grafts or the modified BSSO technique in mandibular advancements greater than 10 mm markedly decreases the risk of persisting mandibular inferior border defects., (Copyright © 2017 American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To determine the impact of secondary versus primary closure techniques on the frequency and severity of pain, facial swelling, trismus, infectious complications, and postoperative bleeding after impacted mandibular third molar extraction., Materials and Methods: Randomized controlled trials were identified through MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL, ongoing trial registers, meeting abstracts, doctoral and masters theses, and manual searching of the reference lists of eligible studies. Study selection, data extraction, risk of bias, and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) rating of confidence in effect estimates were undertaken independently in duplicate., Results: Of 1,721 identified citations, 14 studies proved eligible. Pain and facial swelling at postoperative days 3 and 7 and infectious complications at day 7 did not differ between techniques. Patients receiving secondary closure had less trismus (in millimeters) at postoperative days 3 (mean difference, 3.72; 95% confidence interval, 1.42 to 6.03, P = .002) and 7 (mean difference, 2.35; 95% confidence interval, 0.37 to 4.33; P = .02). Four randomized controlled trials reported bleeding: in 2, there was no bleeding in either group; the numbers of bleeding events with primary and secondary closures were 22 and 16 and 5 and 15, respectively, in the other 2. Because of the risk of bias and inconsistency in results, the evidence warranted, at best, low confidence in the estimates of effect across all outcomes., Conclusions: Although differences between primary and secondary closure techniques after impacted mandibular third molar extraction are likely to be small, available evidence provides only low confidence in the effect estimates. The results do not support a preference for either approach., (Copyright © 2012 American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To assess the efficacy and safety of low-level laser energy irradiation (LLEI) for decreasing pain, swelling, and trismus after surgical removal of impacted mandibular third molars (IMTMs)., Materials and Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Central Register of Controlled Trials of the Cochrane Library were searched from their inception, and conference proceedings, cross-references, and gray literature were searched for the last 5 years for randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials that evaluated the effects of any type of LLEI, compared with active or inactive treatments, in patients undergoing surgical removal of IMTMs. Risk of bias in included studies was assessed by 2 independent evaluators using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. A random-effects model meta-analysis was used to estimate the mean difference of trismus between the groups. Heterogeneity was assessed using Cochran χ(2) and I(2)., Results: Ten eligible trials were included in this systematic review. The included studies overall had a moderate risk of bias. Because of heterogeneity in the intervention and outcomes assessments, pain and swelling outcomes were only qualitatively summarized and indicated no beneficial effects of LLEI over placebo. Patients receiving LLEI had an average of 4.2 mm (95% confidence interval, 1.2 to 7.2) and 5.2 mm (95% confidence interval, 1.8 to 8.2) less trismus than patients receiving no active treatment on the second and seventh day after the surgery, respectively., Conclusions: There was no benefit of LLEI on pain or swelling and a moderate benefit on trismus after removal of IMTMs. It is necessary to standardize the intervention and outcomes assessment and to conduct adequately powered, well-designed trials to evaluate the efficacy of LLEI., (Copyright © 2012 American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)