Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and endodontics · 2000
Prediction of recovery from neurosensory deficit after bilateral sagittal split osteotomy.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Ylikontiola L, Kinnunen J, Laukkanen P, Oikarinen K
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To observe the suitability of different combinations of readily available tests to predict recovery from a neurosensory deficit after bilateral sagittal split osteotomy (BSSO).
STUDY DESIGN: Thirty patients scheduled for BSSO were examined before surgery and 4 days, 3 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year after surgery. At each follow-up, the patients self-evaluated the subjective neurosensory deficit of the lower lip and chin of both sides. Neurosensory function was also measured by tests consisting of light touch, 2-point discrimination, pin tactile discrimination, thermal discrimination, and sensibility testing of the mandibular molars. The positive predictive values (PPV) of each test for recovery from the neurosensory deficit were calculated. Furthermore, different tests were combined, and the PPVs for recovery from the neurosensory deficit of these combinations were analyzed.
RESULTS: A positive response to sensibility testing of the mandibular first and second molars 4 days and 3 weeks after surgery was related to a PPV of 100% and 87%, respectively, for full recovery from sensation loss at 1 year. However, none of the tests alone could reliably predict recovery from the neurosensory deficit after BSSO. When 3 different tests were combined, the best results were achieved by the combinations of a light test or a 2-point discrimination test and a pin tactile test with the sensibility testing of mandibular molars.
CONCLUSIONS: Sensibility testing of mandibular molars can be used to predict recovery from the neurosensory deficit after BSSO. The best positive predictive ability can be achieved by combining a mechanoceptive test, a nociceptive test, and sensibility testing of mandibular molars.
STUDY DESIGN: Thirty patients scheduled for BSSO were examined before surgery and 4 days, 3 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year after surgery. At each follow-up, the patients self-evaluated the subjective neurosensory deficit of the lower lip and chin of both sides. Neurosensory function was also measured by tests consisting of light touch, 2-point discrimination, pin tactile discrimination, thermal discrimination, and sensibility testing of the mandibular molars. The positive predictive values (PPV) of each test for recovery from the neurosensory deficit were calculated. Furthermore, different tests were combined, and the PPVs for recovery from the neurosensory deficit of these combinations were analyzed.
RESULTS: A positive response to sensibility testing of the mandibular first and second molars 4 days and 3 weeks after surgery was related to a PPV of 100% and 87%, respectively, for full recovery from sensation loss at 1 year. However, none of the tests alone could reliably predict recovery from the neurosensory deficit after BSSO. When 3 different tests were combined, the best results were achieved by the combinations of a light test or a 2-point discrimination test and a pin tactile test with the sensibility testing of mandibular molars.
CONCLUSIONS: Sensibility testing of mandibular molars can be used to predict recovery from the neurosensory deficit after BSSO. The best positive predictive ability can be achieved by combining a mechanoceptive test, a nociceptive test, and sensibility testing of mandibular molars.