Journal of stomatology, oral and maxillofacial surgery · 2026
Oral surgeons' postoperative follow-up practices after Oroantral communication closure.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Miller Charles, Cohen Owen, Ward Corban, Marx Jacob, Lee Samantha, Gundersen Chase, Hung Man
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Oroantral communication (OAC) is an abnormal passage between the oral cavity and maxillary sinus, most commonly occurring after extraction of posterior maxillary teeth. Untreated defects can lead to chronic sinusitis or progress to an oroantral fistula, complicating oral rehabilitation. Although surgical closure techniques are well described, evidence on postoperative follow-up care is limited. This study assessed oral surgeons' follow-up practices after OAC closure and factors influencing confidence in postoperative management.
METHODS: An anonymous online survey was distributed through professional associations and institutional networks. The questionnaire collected data on demographics, clinical practices, and self-reported confidence in postoperative follow-up management after OAC closure. Associations between experience, follow-up frequency, and confidence were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis and Spearman's rank correlation tests.
RESULTS: Forty-eight oral surgeons participated. Most were male (95.8%) and aged 40-49 years (38.8%). First follow-up was usually scheduled within two weeks, and two visits were most common. More than half (55.1%) used self-developed protocols, while 24.5% followed established guidelines. Confidence in postoperative follow-up was generally high: 83.7% of respondents reported being very confident. Years in practice correlated positively with self-reported confidence in postoperative follow-up management (p < 0.001), while follow-up frequency showed no association.
CONCLUSION: Postoperative OAC follow-up practices show consistent early review timing but variation in protocol sources, and surgeon confidence is positively associated with years in practice. Because recruitment used a convenience sampling with potential selection bias, findings should be interpreted as descriptive benchmarking rather than generalizable estimates.
METHODS: An anonymous online survey was distributed through professional associations and institutional networks. The questionnaire collected data on demographics, clinical practices, and self-reported confidence in postoperative follow-up management after OAC closure. Associations between experience, follow-up frequency, and confidence were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis and Spearman's rank correlation tests.
RESULTS: Forty-eight oral surgeons participated. Most were male (95.8%) and aged 40-49 years (38.8%). First follow-up was usually scheduled within two weeks, and two visits were most common. More than half (55.1%) used self-developed protocols, while 24.5% followed established guidelines. Confidence in postoperative follow-up was generally high: 83.7% of respondents reported being very confident. Years in practice correlated positively with self-reported confidence in postoperative follow-up management (p < 0.001), while follow-up frequency showed no association.
CONCLUSION: Postoperative OAC follow-up practices show consistent early review timing but variation in protocol sources, and surgeon confidence is positively associated with years in practice. Because recruitment used a convenience sampling with potential selection bias, findings should be interpreted as descriptive benchmarking rather than generalizable estimates.