Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery : official journal of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons · 2017
A Comparative Clinical Evaluation of the Buccal Fat Pad and Extended Nasolabial Flap in the Reconstruction of the Surgical Defect in Oral Submucous Fibrosis Patients.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Agrawal Deepak, Pathak Richa, Newaskar Vilas, Idrees Faisal, Waskle Rajesh
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of locally available nasolabial and buccal fat pad flaps for increasing postoperative mouth opening in the reconstruction of the defect created after fiberotomy in surgically treated cases of oral submucous fibrosis (OSMF).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Of 32 patients selected for the study, 21 patients underwent closure of the surgical defect using the buccal fat pad (group 1) and 11 patients underwent closure of the surgical defect using a nasolabial flap (group 2). Histologically proven cases of OSMF with a mouth opening no larger than 25 mm were included in the study. Patients in groups 1 and 2 were evaluated at regular intervals and mouth opening was documented preoperatively, intraoperatively, and at 3 and 6 months of follow-up. The results were analyzed by paired and unpaired t tests.
RESULTS: In groups 1 and 2, mouth opening differed substantially at all periods of follow-up from preoperative values. At 3-month follow-up, mean mouth opening increased to 32.41 mm in group 2 compared with 30.47 in group 1. No relevant difference was observed in mouth opening between groups 1 and 2 at the end of 6 months. The effective increase in mouth opening at the end of 6 months compared with the preoperative value was statistically different in group 2 (mean increase, 24.2 mm) compared with group 1 (mean increase, 19.2 mm).
CONCLUSION: Nasolabial flaps are a good option for the coverage of surgically treated defects in OSMF compared with the buccal fat pad.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Of 32 patients selected for the study, 21 patients underwent closure of the surgical defect using the buccal fat pad (group 1) and 11 patients underwent closure of the surgical defect using a nasolabial flap (group 2). Histologically proven cases of OSMF with a mouth opening no larger than 25 mm were included in the study. Patients in groups 1 and 2 were evaluated at regular intervals and mouth opening was documented preoperatively, intraoperatively, and at 3 and 6 months of follow-up. The results were analyzed by paired and unpaired t tests.
RESULTS: In groups 1 and 2, mouth opening differed substantially at all periods of follow-up from preoperative values. At 3-month follow-up, mean mouth opening increased to 32.41 mm in group 2 compared with 30.47 in group 1. No relevant difference was observed in mouth opening between groups 1 and 2 at the end of 6 months. The effective increase in mouth opening at the end of 6 months compared with the preoperative value was statistically different in group 2 (mean increase, 24.2 mm) compared with group 1 (mean increase, 19.2 mm).
CONCLUSION: Nasolabial flaps are a good option for the coverage of surgically treated defects in OSMF compared with the buccal fat pad.