Displaying all 5 publications

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. Kamal A, Salman B, Razak NHA, Samsudin ABR
    Eur J Dent, 2020 Oct;14(4):613-620.
    PMID: 32777838 DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1714765
    OBJECTIVE:  A dry socket is a well-recognized complication of wound healing following tooth extraction. Its etiology is poorly understood and commonly occur among healthy patients. As such, management strategies for dry socket has always been empirical rather than scientific with varying outcome. The aim of this study is to investigate the efficacy of concentrated growth factor (CGF) and low-level laser therapy (LLLT) and compared them to the conventional treatment in the management of dry socket.

    MATERIALS AND METHODS:  Sixty patients with one dry socket each, at University Dental Hospital Sharjah, were divided into three treatment groups based on their choice. In group I (n = 30), conventional treatment comprising of gentle socket curettage and saline irrigation was done. Group II (n = 15) dry sockets were treated with CGF and group III (n = 15) sockets were lased with LLLT. All dry socket patients were seen at day 0 for treatment and subsequently followed-up at 4, 7, 14, and 21 days. Pain score, perisocket inflammation, perisocket tenderness, and amount of granulation tissue formation were noted.

    STATISTICAL ANALYSIS:  Data were analyzed as mean values for each treatment group. Comparisons were made for statistical analysis within the group and among the three groups to rank the efficacy of treatment using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Statistically significant difference is kept at p < 0.05.

    RESULTS:  Conventional treatment group I took more than 7 days to match the healing phase of group II CGF treated socket and group III LLLT irradiated socket (p = 0.001). When healing rate between CGF and LLLT are compared, LLLT group III showed a delay of 4 days compared with CGF in granulation tissue formation and pain control.

    CONCLUSION:  CGF treated socket was superior to LLLT in its ability to generate 75% granulation tissue and eliminate pain symptom by day 7 (p = 0.001).

  2. Qabbani AA, Razak NHA, Kawas SA, Sheikh Abdul Hamid S, Wahbi S, Samsudin AR
    J Craniofac Surg, 2017 Jun;28(4):e318-e325.
    PMID: 28230596 DOI: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000003569
    The aim of this study was to determine the efficacy of immediate implant placement with alveolar bone augmentation on socket preservation following atraumatic tooth extraction and comparing it with a tooth alveolar socket that was allowed to heal in a conventional way.Twenty medically fit patients (8 males and 12 females aged between 18 and 40 years) who needed noncomplicated tooth extraction of mandibular premolar teeth were divided randomly and equally into 2 groups. In Group I, the empty extraction socket was left untreated and allowed to heal in a conventional way. In Group II, the immediate implant was placed and the gap between the implant and the inner buccal plate surface of the socket wall was filled with lyophilized bovine bone granules and the wound was covered with pericardium membrane. The patients were followed up clinically and radiologically for regular reviews at 1 week, 3 months, and 9 months postoperative. Cone beam computerized tomography images of the alveolar ridge and socket were analyzed to determine the structural changes of the alveolar ridge. Resonance frequency analysis was measured at 9 months for Group II to assess the degree of secondary stability of the implants by using Osstell machine.A significant difference of bone resorption of 1.49 mm (confidence interval, CI 95%, 0.63-2.35) was observed within the control group at 3 months, and 1.84 mm (P ≤ 0.05) at 9 months intervals. No significant changes of bone resorption were observed in Group II. Comparison between groups showed a highly significant difference at 3 months; 2.56 mm (CI 95% 4.22-0.90) and at 9 months intervals; 3.2 mm (CI 95%, 4.70-1.62) P ≤ 0.001 between Group I and II. High resonance frequency analysis values were observed at 9 months postoperative in Group II.In conclusion, the insertion of immediate implants in fresh extraction sockets together with grafting the circumferential gap between the bony socket wall and the implant surface with bovine bone granules was able to preserve a greater amount of alveolar ridge volume when compared with an extraction socket that was left to heal in a conventional way.
  3. 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).

  4. Al Qabbani A, Al Kawas S, Enezei H, Razak NHA, Al Bayatti SW, Samsudin AR, et al.
    Dent Res J (Isfahan), 2018;15(6):420-429.
    PMID: 30534170
    BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the stability of immediate implant placement for alveolar bone augmentation and preservation with bovine bone graft following atraumatic tooth extraction.

    MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a prospective interventional study with convenient sampling (n = 10). Thirty patients aged between 18 and 40 years, who needed noncomplicated tooth extraction of mandibular premolar tooth, were sequentially divided equally into three groups. In Group I, simple extraction was done and the empty extraction socket left to heal conventionally. In Group II, extraction sockets were filled with lyophilized bovine granules only. In Group III, immediate implants were placed into extraction sockets, and the buccal gap was also filled with bovine granules. All groups were subjected to cone beam computed tomography scan for radiological evaluation. Assessment of biomechanical stability (radiofrequency analysis [RFA] was performed at 9 months postoperative for Group III to assess the degree of secondary stability of the implants using Osstell. Repeated measure analysis of variance (ANOVA) test was applied when comparing within each group at three different time intervals, whereas one-way ANOVA was applied followed by post hoc-tukey test when comparing between groups. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

    RESULTS: Radiological assessment reveals a significant difference of bone resorption in alveolar dimension within Group I; 1.49 mm (P = 0.002), and 0.82 mm (P = 0.005), respectively, between day 0 and 3 months. Comparison between Group I and III showed a highly significant difference of bone resorption in ridge width at 3 months 2.56 mm (P = 0.001) and at 9 months interval 3.2 mm (P < 0.001). High RFA values demonstrating an excellent biomechanical stability were observed in Group III at 9 months postoperatively.

    CONCLUSION: The insertion of immediate implants in extraction sockets with bovine bone augmentation of the buccal gap was able to preserve a greater amount of alveolar ridge volume.

  5. Bachok N, Biswal BM, Razak NHA, Zainoon WMNW, Mokhtar K, Rahman RA, et al.
    Malays J Med Sci, 2018 Sep;25(5):79-87.
    PMID: 30914865 MyJurnal DOI: 10.21315/mjms2018.25.5.8
    Background: This quasi-clinical trial compared the effects of Oral7® and salt-soda mouthwash on the development of dental caries, salivary gland function, radiation mucositis, xerostomia and EORTC QLQ H&N C35 scores in head and neck cancer patients who underwent radiotherapy.

    Methods: We included patients with histopathologically diagnosed head and neck cancers who had received radiation, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status 0-1 and age range of 15-60 years. Patients with prior radiotherapy and chemotherapy, edentulous status, total parotidectomy, sicca syndrome or on xerosis-induced medications were excluded. We assigned 15 patients each to the Oral7® and salt-soda groups.

    Results: There was no significant difference in the mean Decayed, Missing and Filling Teeth (DMFT) score between groups. Head and neck cancer patients who were on Oral7® had a significantly better quality of life than those on salt-soda in relation to the swallowing problems, social eating, mouth opening, xerostomia and illness scales. Patients who were on Oral7® had a significantly lower xerostomia score than patients on salt-soda mouthwash. Patients on Oral7® had a significantly lower mucositis score in week 5-7 compared to patients in the salt-soda group.

    Conclusion: Oral7® showed advantages over salt-soda solution in relation to reducing xerostomia, easing radiation-induced mucositis, and improving quality of life, despite the non-significant difference in the dental caries assessment.

Related Terms
Filters
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator (afdal@afpm.org.my)

External Links