Insomnia is a highly prevalent condition associated with significant morbidity, reduction in quality of life, and increase in healthcare costs, and is a risk factor for multiple physical and mental disorders. The primary treatment modality is cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) but this is associated with difficulties with access and higher cost as well as poor response in some patients. Therefore, pharmacotherapy for insomnia is common and hypnotic agents are among the most frequently prescribed medications in the United States. Older medications for insomnia are limited by their side effect burden and narrow therapeutic window. Newer hypnotics, on the other hand, have been shown to have a better safety profile and longer term efficacy. While some studies have shown that long-term hypnotic use is associated with adverse outcomes, the current evidence is equivocal. The decision to treat chronic insomnia disorder with long-term hypnotics should be individualized and balance the potential risks of continuing hypnotic medication use with the risks of untreated persistent insomnia and associated functional limitations. This clinical review discusses the currently available medication options to treat insomnia, their mechanisms of action, dosing, and side effect profiles. This review also provides guidance on long-term management of hypnotics and the use of these medications in the elderly, those with medical comorbidities, and other special populations.

Background: Virtual surgical planning has facilitated preoperative planning, splint accuracy, and intraoperative efficiency in orthognathic surgery. The translation of the virtual surgical plan to the actual result has not been adequately examined. The authors examined the conformity of the virtual surgical plan to the postoperative result. They hypothesize that the greatest conformity exists in the anteroposterior dimensions. Methods: The authors examined patients who underwent Le Fort I maxillary advancement, bilateral sagittal split osteotomy, and genioplasty. The preoperative virtual surgical planning file and postoperative cone beam computed tomographic scan were registered in Mimics using unchanged landmarks. The conformity to the virtual surgical plan was quantified using linear and angular measurements between bone surface landmarks. Results were compared using t tests, with p < 0.05 considered statistically significant Results: One hundred patients who underwent Le Fort I maxillary advancement, bilateral sagittal split osteotomy, and genioplasty were included. Three-dimensional analysis showed significant differences between the plan and outcome for the following landmarks: A point (y, p = 0.04; z, p = 0.04), B point (y, p = 0.02; z, p = 0.02), pogonion (y, p = 0.04), menton (x, p = 0.02; y, p = 0.01; z, p = 0.03), and anterior nasal spine (x, p = 0.04; y, p = 0.04; z, p = 0.01). Angular measurements sella-nasion-A point, sella-nasion-B point, and A point-nasion-B point were not statistically different. Conclusions: There is a high degree of conformity comparing the orthognathic virtual surgical plan to the actual postoperative result. However, some incongruency is seen vertically (maxilla) and sagittally (mandible, chin). Departures of the actual position compared with the plan could be the result of condylar position changes, osteotomy locations, aesthetic intraoperative decisions, and/or play in the system.

Purpose: Orthognathic surgery for dentofacial deformities is typically preceded and followed by orthodontic treatment. Traditionally, orthodontic hardware is secured to the dentition to allow dental movement and stabilization. Clear-aligner therapy (eg, Invisalign) provides an aesthetic alternative, consisting of a series of transparent trays. Its use has not been described in complex triple-jaw orthognathic surgery. The purpose of this study is to evaluate perioperative outcomes and 3-dimensionally quantify postoperative edema in Invisalign patients undergoing triple-jaw orthognathic procedures, comparing this to patients treated with conventional fixed appliances. The surgical approach to patients with clear-aligners is also outlined. Methods: The authors conducted a retrospective chart review and 3-dimensional morphometric study of Invisalign patients undergoing triple-jaw surgery (LeFort I osteotomy, bilateral sagittal split osteotomy, and genioplasty). An identical assessment of demographically matched patients treated with conventional fixed appliances was performed and compared with the Invisalign group. Results: Thirty-three patients, with a mean age of 19.99 years, were included: 13 with Invisalign and 20 with conventional fixed appliances. No significant difference was observed in operating time, concurrent extraction of teeth, fat grafting, duration of hospital stay, diet advancement, and use of narcotic analgesics between the 2 groups. Nine patients had sufficient 3-dimensional images for volumetric analysis (4 with Invisalign and 5 with conventional fixed appliances). Postoperative edema was not significantly different (P = 0.712) when comparing conventional fixed appliances (44.29 ± 23.16 cm3) to Invisalign (37.36 ± 31.19 cm3). Conclusion: The present study demonstrates that complex multiple-jaw orthognathic procedures can be successfully performed in Invisalign patients. Perioperative and short-term clinical outcomes are not compromised.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.