Objectives: Despite advances in maxillofacial surgery, impaired bone healing remains a concern for surgical teams. Many studies have evaluated the effects of sildenafil and pentoxifylline on bone healing. However, their effects on healing of bone fractures have not been well investigated. This study aimed to assess the effects of the phosphodiesterase inhibitors sildenafil and pentoxifylline on healing of mandibular fractures in rats. Materials and Methods: A total of 60 rats were randomly divided into six groups of 10. Mandibular fracture was induced in all rats. After the surgical procedure, group C1 received saline, group S1 received 10 mg/kg sildenafil and group P1 received 50 mg/kg pentoxifylline. The rats were sacrificed after 1 week. Groups C4, S4, and P4 received pharmaceutical therapy as in groups C1, S1, and P1 but were sacrificed after 4 weeks. The samples then underwent histological analysis. Results: The mean rate of bone healing of mandibular fractures in groups S1 and P1 was significantly higher than in group C1 at 1 week (P<0.001). The mean rate of bone healing of mandibular fractures in group P1 was higher than in group S1 at 1 week (P=0.04). The mean rate of bone healing of mandibular fractures in groups S4 (P=0.001) and P4 (P=0.004) was significantly higher than in group C4 at 4 weeks, but no significant difference was noted in the rate of healing between groups P4 and S4 (P=0.53). Conclusion: Sildenafil and pentoxifylline can be used as adjuncts to enhance bone healing in rats.
Background and Aim: This study aimed to compare the level of pain, wound healing, facial edema, and surgeon's comfort in surgical extraction of impacted third molars using surgical scalpel versus radiofrequency (RF) incision. Materials and Methods: IThis split-mouth clinical trial evaluated 41 patients with bilateral impacted third molars in one jaw with the same Pederson difficulty index (between 5 and 7, moderate difficulty). The surgical incision was made using a surgical scalpel on one random side and an RF device on the contralateral side. The level of pain was measured using a numerical rating scale (NRS) 7 days postoperatively. The wound healing was evaluated using the wound evaluation scale (WES) 4 weeks postoperatively. Facial edema was quantified using a tape measure 7 days postoperatively. Surgeon's comfort was assessed by asking the surgeons regarding the level of easiness of the procedure. The pain score, wound healing score, facial edema, and surgeon's comfort in surgical extraction of impacted third molars were compared between the two sides using SPSS 22 via paired t-test and McNemar's test. Result: The surgeon's comfort was significantly higher in the use of a surgical scalpel (P<0.001). The difference in pain score (P=0.95), wound healing (P=0.32), and facial edema (P>0.05) was not significant between the two groups. Conclusion:The results of this study showed no significant difference in surgical extraction of impacted third molars using a surgical scalpel or an RF device regarding the level of pain, wound healing, or facial edema.
Introduction: Orthognathic surgery not only changes the appearance of the face and the occlusion, but also changes the biomechanics and force of chewing. The aim of this study was to evaluate the maximum changes in byte force after orthognathic surgery in class III patients. Materials & Methods: In this clinical trial study, 20 class Ш skeletal patients referred to the School of Dentistry of Isfahan Azad University in the academic year 97-98 were selected and were divided into two groups before orthognathic surgery and 3 months after orthognathic surgery. The surgical technique in these patients was 2-jaw technique (Lefort 1 and BSSO). The area of the first right maxillary molar and the left maxillary first molar were measured at two intervals before surgery and three months after surgery. The sensor was first placed on one side of the first maxillary molar, then on the other side, and vice versa. The measurements were repeated three times on each side and the highest number was recorded as the patient's MBF (Maximum bite force). Data were analyzed using ANOVA and Tukey statistical tests (α = 0.05). Results: Mean maximum dental bite force was significantly decreased 3 months after surgery (p value < 0.001); this did not lead to a significant difference between maximum bite force and gender (p value = 0.244). Conclusion: Maxillofacial surgery in class III skeletal patients reduces the byte force in 3 months after maxillofacial surgery.
Background and Aim:Despite the advances in maxillofacial surgery, impaired bone healing remains a concern for surgical teams. Effects of sildenafil and pentoxifylline on healing of bone fractures have not been well investigated. This study aimed to assess the effects of sildenafil and pentoxifylline phosphodiesterase inhibitors on healing of mandibular fractures in rats. Materials and Methods: In this animal study, 48 Wistar rats were randomly divided into six groups (n=8). Mandibular fracture was induced in all rats. After the surgical procedure, C2 group (control, 2 weeks) received saline, S2 group (sildenafil, 2 weeks) received 10 mg/kg sildenafil, and P2 group (pentoxifylline, 2 weeks) received 50 mg/ kg pentoxifylline. The rats were sacrificed after 2 weeks. C6 (control, 6 weeks), S6 (sildenafil, 6 weeks), and P6 (pentoxifylline, 6 weeks) groups received pharmaceutical therapy as in C2, S2, and P2 but were sacrificed after 6 weeks. The samples then underwent histological analysis. Data were analyzed using SPSS 22 via one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's post-hoc test. Results: The mean rate of healing of mandibular fractures in S2 and P2 was significantly higher than that in C2 after 2 weeks (P<0.001). The mean rate of healing of fractures in P2 was higher than that in S2 after 2 weeks (P=0.04). The mean rate of healing of fractures in S6 (P=0.001) and P6 (P=0.004) was significantly higher than that in C6 after 6 weeks but no significant difference was noted between P6 and S6 in this respect (P=0.53). Conclusion:Sildenafil and pentoxifylline can be used as adjuncts to enhance bone healing.
Background and Aim: Since different implant systems are available, dentists are confronted with the question of which criteria are essential for a proficient implant system selection. This study aimed to investigate the factors affecting implant system selection by dentists in Kerman. Materials and Methods:A questionnaire inspecting the key factors in implant system selection was distributed among 120 dentists. Fisher's exact test was used to analyze the data. Result: Most dentists used two implant systems at the office (52.5%). For the majority of dentists (40.8%), the first factor in choosing an implant system was the implant support services. The price of each implant (25.8%) and the satisfaction of previous cases (23.3%) were the second and third factors, respectively. For most dentists (59.2%), the least important reason for choosing an implant system was the manufacturing country. Recommendation from colleagues (24.2%) was of minor importance in implant system selection. Sixty-one (50.8%) dentists had a history of abandoning an implant system because of failure (59.0%) and lack of support from the importer (27.9%). The quality of the implant was the major cause of system selection for 68.8% of dentists and 75% of specialists (P<0.05). Conclusion:The most important reason for choosing an implant system was postsales services. The cost of each implant and the satisfaction of previous cases were other important factors. The least important factor was the system's manufacturer.
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.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.