MyMedR

Displaying all 5 publications

Abstract:

Sort:

Fulltext Mandibular fracture at HUSM: a 5-year retrospective study

Kamali U, Pohchi A

Archives of Orofacial Sciences, 2009;4(2):33-35.
MyJurnal

This is a retrospective study to determine the distribution site, associated fracture and causes of mandibular fractures at HUSM, over a 5 year period, from 1st January 2002 - 31st December 2006. Records of patients who had mandibular fracture were reviewed. Data of age, sex, site of fracture, causes and associated fracture were recorded and analyzed using SPSS version 15.0. There were 113 (84.3%) males and 21 (15.7%) females. The mean age for male was 84.3% and female was 15.7%. The fracture occurs mostly at the age of 11-20 years (45.5%), followed by 21-30 years (30.6%). Motor vehicle accidents (MVA) were the commonest causes of mandibular fracture (92.5%), followed by fight and assault (3.7%), industrial accidents (3.0%), fall (0.7%). There were no cases recorded due to sport injury. The commonest site of mandibular fracture occurs at angle and para-symphysis (23%), followed by body (20.1%), symphysis (16.7%), condyle (15.5%) and ramus (1.7%). The most common associated fractures were head injury (23.5%), followed by clavicle fracture (17.2%) and fracture of radius (10.7%). Mandibular fracture was common in males with the mean age 24.63 years and mostly due to MVA. Angle and para-symphysis is the commonest site of mandibular fracture with most of the patient suffered from concomitant head injury.
Fulltext 3D mapping of safe and danger zones in the maxilla and mandible for the placement of intermaxillary fixation screws

Purmal K, Alam MK, Pohchi A, Abdul Razak NH

PLoS One, 2013;8(12):e84202.
PMID: 24367643 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0084202

Intermaxillary (IMF) screws feature several advantages over other devices used for intermaxillary fixation, but using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans to determine the safe and danger zones to place these devices for all patients can be expensive. This study aimed to determine the optimal interradicular and buccopalatal/buccolingual spaces for IMF screw placement in the maxilla and mandible. The CBCT volumetric data of 193 patients was used to generate transaxial slices between the second molar on the right to the second molar on the left in both arches. The mean interradicular and buccopalatal/buccolingual distances and standard deviation values were obtained at heights of 2, 5, 8 and 11 mm from the alveolar bone crest. An IMF screw with a diameter of 1.0 mm and length of 7 mm can be placed distal to the canines (2 - 11 mm from the alveolar crest) and less than 8 mm between the molars in the maxilla. In the mandible, the safest position is distal to the first premolar (more than 5 mm) and distal to the second premolar (more than 2 mm). There was a significant difference (p<0.05) between the right and left quadrants. The colour coding 3D template showed the safe and danger zones based on the mesiodistal, buccopalatal and buccolingual distances in the maxilla and mandible.The safest sites for IMF screw insertion in the maxilla were between the canines and first premolars and between the first and second molars. In the mandible, the safest sites were between the first and second premolars and between the second premolar and first molar. However, the IMF screw should not exceed 1.0 mm in diameter and 7 mm in length.
Comparative study between dense and porous hydroxyapatite using light and scanning electron microscopy

Pohchi A, Suzina AH, Samsudin AR, Al-Salihi KA

Med J Malaysia, 2004 May;59 Suppl B:151-2.
PMID: 15468863

This in vivo study revealed that porous hydroxyapatite (PHA) and dense hydroxyapatite (DHA) are good implant materials that can accelerate bone healing and resorbed in acceptable time. But there were differences in the mechanism of the resorption of DHA and PHA due to variability in the physical properties and osteogenicity.
Fulltext An intraorbital metallic foreign body

Asif JA, Pohchi A, Alam MK, Athar Y, Shiekh RA

Indian J Ophthalmol, 2014 Nov;62(11):1098-1100.
PMID: 25494256 DOI: 10.4103/0301-4738.146756
Outcome of Different Treatment Modalities of Fracture Zygoma

Rahman RA, Ghazali NM, Rahman NA, Pohchi A, Razak NHA

J Craniofac Surg, 2020 Jun;31(4):1056-1062.
PMID: 32176023 DOI: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000006297

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine the pattern of fractured zygoma, different treatment modalities, and complications of the treatment in our center. It also aimed to determine the association between the treatment modalities and complication of treatment, and association between number of fixation and complication.
METHODOLOGY: A retrospective review was conducted from January 2008 until December 2011. All patients diagnosed with zygomatic complex fractured that met the inclusion and exclusion criteria were included in the study. Zingg's Classification was used in the study.
RESULTS: The median age was 23.5. Type A was the most common fracture type made up 26.6%. About 90.8% of the injury was caused by road traffic accident. Forty-four patients were treated with open reduction and internal fixation and 4 patients were treated with close reduction only. Fifty patients were treated conservatively. Gillies approach in combination with fixation is the most common procedure accounted for 50%. Three-point fixation at infraorbital, maxillary buttress, frontozygomatic suture, and zygomatic arch was the most common site. However, there were no significant associations between the number of fixation and the occurrence of the complication (P = 0.307). About 29.2% in the treatment group and 66% in the conservative group had complications. About 35.7% of patients in treatment group had complications, while 66% had trismus in conservative group.
CONCLUSION: There was a significant association between types of treatment and the occurrence of complication (P = 0.001). However, there were no significant association between number of fixation and the occurrence of complications (P = 0.307).