MyMedR

Displaying publications 21 - 24 of 24 in total

Abstract:

Sort:

Fulltext How does mandibular advancement with or without maxillary procedures affect pharyngeal airways? An overview of systematic reviews

Tan SK, Leung WK, Tang ATH, Zwahlen RA

PLoS One, 2017;12(7):e0181146.
PMID: 28749983 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0181146

BACKGROUND: Mandibular advancement surgery may positively affect pharyngeal airways and therefore potentially beneficial to obstructive sleep apnea (OSA).
OBJECTIVE: To collect evidence from published systematic reviews that have evaluated pharyngeal airway changes related to mandibular advancement with or without maxillary procedures.
METHODOLOGY: PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were searched without limiting language or timeline. Eligible systematic reviews evaluating changes in pharyngeal airway dimensions and respiratory parameters after mandibular advancement with or without maxillary surgery were identified and included.
RESULTS: This overview has included eleven systematic reviews. Maxillomandibular advancement (MMA) increases linear, cross-sectional plane and volumetric measurements of pharyngeal airways significantly (p<0.0001), while reducing the apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) and the respiratory disturbance index (RDI) significantly (p<0.0001). Two systematic reviews included primary studies that have evaluated single-jaw mandibular advancement, but did not discuss their effect onto pharyngeal airways. Based on the included primary studies of those systematic reviews, single-jaw mandibular advancement was reported to significantly increase pharyngeal airway dimensions (p<0.05); however, conclusive long-term results were lacking.
CONCLUSION: MMA increases pharyngeal airway dimensions and is beneficial to patients suffering from OSA. However, more evidence is still needed to draw definite conclusion related to the effect of single-jaw mandibular advancement osteotomies on pharyngeal airways.

Matched MeSH terms: Maxilla/surgery*
Management of unfavorable implant positions and angulations in edentulous maxillae with different complete-arch fixed prosthetic designs: A case series and clinical guidelines

Kher U, Tunkiwala A, Patil PG

J Prosthet Dent, 2022 Jan;127(1):6-14.
PMID: 33243475 DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.09.023

Implant-supported fixed prostheses in the edentulous maxilla can be difficult because of anatomic limitations and high esthetic demand. The choice between cement and screw retention depends on factors such as esthetics, occlusion, retrievability, and passivity. The choice is also often governed by the ability to manage technical or biologic complications. In the edentulous maxilla, because of the bone trajectory and resorption pattern, unfavorable implant angulations may be encountered. In such situations, a conventional screw-retained prosthesis is difficult to design. This article describes the restoration of edentulous maxillae for a series of patients with different complete-arch fixed prosthesis designs. The clinical guidelines, including indications, advantages, and limitations of each design, were discussed.

Matched MeSH terms: Maxilla/surgery
The Impact of Facial Growth in Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate Treated With 2 Different Protocols

Wong LS, Lu TC, Hang DTD, Chen PK

Ann Plast Surg, 2020 05;84(5):541-544.
PMID: 32091442 DOI: 10.1097/SAP.0000000000002232

BACKGROUND AND AIM: It is well known that palatoplasty can often cause disturbances in maxillary growth. The use of a single-layer vomer flap for the early closure of the hard palate is controversy among surgeons. The aim of this study is to compare the 10-year facial growth of 2 surgical protocols in the treatment of patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate performed by a single surgeon.
METHODS: This retrospective analysis includes 43 nonsyndromic patients with complete unilateral cleft lip with or without a vomer flap for the closure of the hard palate during cleft-lip repair. Lateral cephalograms were obtained at the age of 5, 7, and 9 years old, and angular measurements were used to assess patient's facial growth. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare 2 treatment protocol groups.
RESULT: A total of 23 patients in protocol 1 group (16 male, 7 female) and 20 patients in protocol 2 group (10 male, 10 female) were included. At the age of 5 and 7, there was no significant difference of maxillary and mandibular growth in both groups. At the age of 9 years, all the angular measurement revealed statistical significance with SNA (P = 0.02), SNB (P = 0.05), ANB (P < 0.01), and SNPg (P = 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: The present study has shown that early anterior palate repair for 3-month-old cleft patients have better maxillary growth and less mandibular prognathism.

Matched MeSH terms: Maxilla/surgery
An Investigation of Three-Dimensional Maxillary Arch Morphometry of Children With Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate

Haque S, Khamis MF, Alam MK, Ahmad WMAW

J Craniofac Surg, 2021 May 01;32(3):964-966.
PMID: 33405460 DOI: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000007366

ABSTRACT: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of multiple factors (congenital and postnatal treatment factors) on the treatment outcome by assessing the maxillary arch dimension of children with unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP). Eighty-five Pakistani children with UCLP were taken who received cheiloplasty and palatoplasty. Laser scanned 3D digital models of UCLP subjects were prepared before any orthodontic treatment and bone grafting at 7.69 ± 2.46 (mean ± standard deviation) years of age. Inter-canine width (ICW), inter-molar width (IMW), and arch depth (AD) measurements of maxillary arch were measured with Mimics software. Multiple linear regression analyses were used to evaluate the association between congenital factors (age, gender, UCLP side, family history of cleft) and postnatal treatment factors (techniques of cheiloplasty and techniques of palatoplasty) with maxillary arch dimensions (ICW, IMW, and AD). P value was set at 5%. The mean (standard deviation) dimensions of ICW, IMW, and AD are 26.7 (5.70) mm, 43.3 (4.66) mm, and 27.1 (5.26) mm, respectively. There is no significant association found between multiple factors and maxillary arch dimensions. This regression analysis shows no significant association between multiple factors and MAD in this sample.

Matched MeSH terms: Maxilla/surgery