Objective: To identify and evaluate the frequency of the different odontogenic conditions that may lead to maxillary sinusitis. Study design: An observational and retrospective meta-analysis was carried out on 770 cases of maxillary sinusitis obtained from a literature review of 15 articles. Results: Maxillary sinusitis most commonly manifests itself as chronic maxillary sinusitis. It is more common in females and is most often diagnosed in the fifth decade of life. The teeth most predominantly affected are the molars, with the first molar tooth being the most frequently involved. The principal etiological factor is extraction.

Background This systematic review aimed to propose a treatment protocol for repairing intraoperative perforation of the Schneiderian membrane during maxillary sinus floor augmentation (MSFA) procedures with lateral window technique. In turn, to assess subsequent implant survival rates placed below repaired membranes compared with intact membranes and therefore determine whether membrane perforation constitutes a risk factor for implant survival. Material and methods This review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. Two independent reviewers conducted an electronic search for articles published between 2008 and April 30, 2020, in four databases: (1) The National Library of Medicine (MEDLINE/PubMed) via Ovid; (2) Web of Science (WOS); (3) SCOPUS; and (4) Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); also, a complementary handsearch was carried out. The Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale was used to assess the quality of evidence in the studies reviewed. Results Seven articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were analyzed. A total of 1598 sinus lift surgeries were included, allowing the placement of 3604 implants. A total of 1115 implants were placed under previously perforated and repaired membranes, obtaining a survival rate of 97.68%, while 2495 implants were placed below sinus membranes that were not damaged during surgery, obtaining a survival rate of 98.88%. The rate of Schneiderian membrane perforation shown in the systematic review was 30.6%. In the articles reviewed, the most widely used technique for repairing perforated membranes was collagen membrane repair. Conclusions Schneiderian membrane perforation during MFSA procedures with lateral approach is not a risk factor for dental implant survival (p=0.229; RR 0.977; 95% CI 0.941-1.015). The knowledge of the exact size of the membrane perforation is essential for deciding on the right treatment plan.

Satisfaction among these completely edentulous patients varied in relation to prosthetic type. The level of general satisfaction among patients with implant-supported prostheses was greater than the group using conventional dentures. Patients rehabilitated with fixed prostheses enjoyed a higher level of satisfaction than patients with overdentures.

Objectives: To evaluate the epidemiological aspects of adenoid cystic carcinoma (ACC) and to evaluate the different therapeutic possibilities as well as the percentage of survival. Study Design: A retrospective, meta-analytic, observational study was carried out by selecting a total of 13 articles, which provided a sample size of 263 cases of patients who had been diagnosed with ACC in the minor salivary glands. Results: ACC was found to be more common among women (56.5%) and the average age at diagnosis was 55.26 years old. The primary location of the tumor was in the palate in 57% of the cases, the predominant pattern being cribiform. The treatment of choice was therapy combined with surgery and radiotherapy in 62.7% of the subjects. The overall survival rate was 70.76% and 56.76%, at 5 and 10 years respectively. Conclusions: Early detection of adenoid cystic carcinoma is necessary in order to enable making an earlier prognosis and thus enable a better quality of life for the patient.

Objectives: To evaluate the anaesthetic properties and tolerance of articaine versus lidocaine at equal vasoconstrictor concentration. Study Design: A total of 96 male and female patients who underwent surgical treatment of the lower third molar participated. Patients were randomly assigned to articaine hydrochloride with epinephrine 1:100,000 and lidocaine hydrochloride with epinephrine 1:100,000. The variables analysed were latency period, duration of anaesthetic effect, tolerance and adverse reactions. Results: Both the latency period and the duration of anaesthetic effect were greater for articaine, although the differences were not statistically significant. Latency: mean difference of 2.70 ± 2.12 minutes (95%CI of -1.51 minutes - 6.92 minutes). Duration: mean difference of -33 minutes 5 seconds ± 31 minutes (95% CI -1 hour 35 minutes - 29 minutes). There were 4 adverse events that did not require the patients to be withdrawn from the study. Conclusions: The anaesthetics in this study have very similar properties for use in surgery and have demonstrated a good safety and tolerability profile Key words: Articaine, lidocaine, vasoconstrictor, adverse reactions.