No abstract

No abstract

BackgroundPostoperative pain from open reduction and internal fixation of mandibular fracture is a serious issue. Amantadine is an N-methyl-D-aspartic acid or N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonist that can be effective against postoperative pain.ObjectivesThe present study examined the efficacy of amantadine in alleviating the postoperative pain of mandibular fracture surgery.Patients and MethodsIn this double-blind study, 60 patients (ASA physical status I–II) were randomly divided into two groups. The mean ages of the participants were 31.2 ± 13.1 years and 32.3 ± 18.1 years, respectively. The male/female ratios were 24/6 and 26/4, respectively, in the case and control groups. Randomization was based on a single sequence of random assignments using computer-generated random numbers. Group I was given oral amantadine 100 mg 1 hour before surgery, and group II received a placebo at the identical time. Through PCA pumps, patients received a bolus dose of morphine at 0.02 mg/kg body weight, to a maximum of 1.5 mg. PCA pumps were set at 6 minutes lockout intervals and a maximum dose of 0.15 mg/kg/h, to a maximum of 10 mg/h. Pain was assessed using a visual analog scale (VAS) at 0, 2, 4, 6, 12, and 24 hours and 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 months after surgery. The amounts of analgesic consumed were recorded for the first 24 hours, and for 6 months after surgery.ResultsThere were no significant differences between the two groups with respect to age, gender, nausea and vomiting, sleep quality, blood pressure, and heart rate. No significant differences were observed between the two groups in pain scores (P = 0.39) and analgesic consumption (P = 0.78).ConclusionsThe results suggest that a single dose of preoperative oral amantadine did not reduce acute or chronic postoperative pain, nor analgesic consumption.

Background/Aims: Fractures of anterior teeth are a highly prevalent form of dental trauma. Among the various treatment options, reattachment of the fractured part to the remaining tooth has a lot of advantages. The aim of this study was to compare different bevel preparation techniques when reattaching fractured fragments to maxillary central incisors. Methods: This study was performed on 52 maxillary central incisors that were randomly divided into 3 experimental groups and 1 control group. In the control group, the repair was done by attaching the fractured fragment using bonding and composite resin without any bevel preparation. In the second and third groups, the bevel preparation was done to a depth of 0.5 mm before attachment of the fragment on the palatal side of the fracture and on the labial and palatal sides, respectively. In the fourth group, after tooth preparation, a 0.5 mm composite veneer was placed on the labial surface. The amount of force needed to refracture the tooth was measured with a universal testing machine, and shear bond strength was calculated in MPa. Results: The mean and standard deviation (mean ± SD) of shear bond strengths in the control group were 81.48 ± 8.18 MPa. In the palatal bevel group, they were 97.74 ± 11.41 MPa; in the labial and palatal bevel group, 131.56 ± 9.25 MPa; and in the composite veneer group, 104.36 ± 5.50 MPa. Significant differences were observed between the groups, but there was no significant difference between the palatal bevel and composite veneer groups. Conclusions: Reattachment of the fractured fragments by all three methods increased the shear bond strength. The highest shear bond strength was obtained when both labial and palatal bevels were used.

No abstract