Silicone implants are one of the most widely used implants for facial augmentation, especially in the chin, mandibular angle, and malar area, utilizing different surgical approaches. Despite their various advantages, many complications have also been reported, including hematoma, infection, bone resorption, numbness, displacement, and asymmetry. This study aims to evaluate the need for facial-implant fixation and compare and contrast fixated and nonfixated facial silicone implants in different facial sites. A narrative review of the topic of facial-implant stabilization using the PubMed database inclusion criteria included articles that discussed the topic of facial implants, were published in English, and included critical information such as the location of the implant, type of stabilization, follow-up periods, and complications. A total of 11 studies were included. Of these, two were prospective clinical studies, three were case series, and the remaining six were retrospective clinical studies. The studies were published between 1995 and 2018. The sample size varied from 2 to 601 cases. Stabilization includes suturing, monocortical screws, or no stabilization. Complications were reported in most of these studies, including asymmetry, bone resorption or erosion, displacement, dissatisfaction, edema, hematoma, infection, mucosal irritation, pain, and paresthesia. The follow-up period ranged from one month to 17 years. Despite the varied settings of these studies, silicone facial implant complications were reported in both fixated and nonfixated implants, with a lack of significant differences between fixated and nonfixated facial silicone implants regarding the method of fixation.
Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the rate of bacterial contamination of reused and new unused burs after different sterilization sessions. Materials and Methods: The test group consisted of 40 used fissure burs, and the control group of 40 unused new fissure burs (total n = 80). The burs from both groups were precleaned according to standard protocols and then subjected to two sterilization sessions (high- and low-steam pressure autoclaving). After each sterilization session, the burs were transferred into incubation tubes which contained thioglycollate culture medium and were monitored daily for a period of 48 h to detect any bacterial growth. Data were collected and statistical analysis was done using Fisher's exact test. Results: Of the 40 burs ofthe test group, 2 burs (5%) showed positive bacterial growth, whereas no bur from the control group showed any sign of bacterial growth after high-pressure autoclaving. The colony structure and Gram staining were compatible with the growth of Staphylococcus epidermis. After a second sterilization session at low-pressure steam autoclaving, no bacterial growth was observed for the test group, but 1 bur (2.5%) from the control group showed bacterial growth and Gram-positive staining matched well with the growth of Brevibacterium species. Conclusions: The new and unused burs were 100% sterile after high-pressure steam autoclaving, whereas 5% of the reused burs appeared positive with bacterial contamination. After low-pressure steam autoclaving, reused burs were 100% sterile, but 1 new bur demonstrated bacterial contamination.
Aim of the study: To compare between the effect of two different bone grafting materials on the horizontal and vertical socket dimensional changes following posterior teeth extraction. Materials and Methods: 30 patients (13 females &17 males) were enrolled in the current study according to specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. The patients were allocated to one of three groups. Group I involved socket preservation using demineralized allograft, group II involved socket preservation using cancellous particulate bovine bone xenograft, while group III served as a negative control group. Radiographic analysis using Cone Beam CT were performed at the time of socket preservation and 4 months later. Results: At 4 months, there was no significant difference between the three groups on all the sites except at the height of the center of the socket (P = 0.029). Pairwise comparison showed that the mean of group I (10.54 ± 2.10) was statistically higher than group III (8.17± 2.26), while there was no significant difference between groups I and II. Conclusion: Socket preservation following posterior teeth extraction using either allograft or xenograft did not significantly influence socket width change. However, the use of allograft can significantly decrease mid vertical height reduction compared with unassisted socket healing.
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.