Objective The aim of this study is to demonstrate whether articaine hydrochloride administered alone as a single buccal infiltration in maxillary tooth removal, can provide favourable palatal anesthesia as compared to buccal and palatal injection of lidocaine. Study Design The study population consisted of 30 patients who were undergoing orthodontic treatment, and who required bilateral extraction of maxillary permanent premolars as per their orthodontic treatment plan. On the experimental side, 4 % articaine/HCl was injected into the buccal vestibule of the tooth to be extracted. On the control side, 2 % lignocaine HCl was injected both into the buccal and the palatal side of the tooth to be extracted. Following tooth extraction all patients completed a 100-mm visual analogue scale (VAS) and faces pain scale (FPS) to rate the pain on extraction. Results According to the VAS and FPS scores, the pain on extraction between buccal infiltration of articaine and the routine buccal and palatal infiltration of lignocaine was statistically insignificant. Conclusions The routine use of a palatal injection for the removal of permanent maxillary premolar teeth may not be required when articaine/HCl is used as the local anesthetic.
Odontogenic Keratocyst (OKC) is a developmental non-inflammatory odontogenic cyst which is proposed to be arising from cell rests of dental lamina. Among the jaw cysts OKCs account for third most common following radicular and dentigerous cyst. Most of the studies have stated that posterior part of the mandible is the most common site, but there are inconsistencies regarding the prominent location of OKCs in the maxilla. Very few studies and cases are reported with OKCs crossing maxillary midline. If do occur they are in older individuals. According to WHO reclassification, this cyst is considered as Keratocystic Odontogenic Tumour (KCOT) because of its neoplastic nature. This article describes a rare site of occurrence of this lesion especially in young patient.
BackgroundThe long term management of miniplate fixation osteosynthesis remains debatable and controversial with few authors advocating routine removal of the miniplates after 3–6 months of placement, while others recommend retention of the miniplates unless their removal is clinically indicated.ObjectiveThe aim was to study the incidence, indications, time gap, role of metallic composition and site of removal of miniplates in operated cases of maxillofacial region over a two-year period.MethodsPatients undergoing removal of miniplates over 2-year period were studied and evaluated regarding the number of miniplates removed, time gap present between fixation and removal of miniplates, indications for removal, metallic composition of miniplates removed, sites of removal and complications. Correlations between indications for miniplate removal based upon time gap, metallic composition, age group and number of miniplates present were determined using Chi-square test. Correlation between metallic composition of miniplate and time gap was also determined using Chi-square test.ResultsThe miniplates were removed in 20 patients (16 males and 4 females). Most common indication for removal was infection (45%). Forty-five percent of the patients underwent miniplate removal within 1 year of placement. Thirty-four miniplates and 118 screws were removed. The correlation between indications for miniplate removal and time gap was found to be statistically significant (P = 0.04).ConclusionMost of the hardware removal is performed subsequent to complications associated with hardware and local factors play more important role than metallic composition. Routine asymptomatic miniplates do not require removal and is not recommended.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.