Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery : official journal of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons · 2013
Analysis of incision effects on upper lip height and thickness after maxillary surgically assisted expansion: a randomized clinical trial.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Antonini Fernando, da Costa Delson João, de Moares Rafaela Scariot, Rebellato Nelson Luis Barbosa, Klüppel Leandro Eduardo, Parente Eduardo Varela
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To evaluate changes from maxillary circumvestibular incision performed with a #15 scalpel blade versus electrocautery on the height and thickness of the upper lip (UL) after surgically assisted maxillary expansion.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-three patients who underwent surgically assisted maxillary expansion for transverse maxillary deficiency from April 2011 through April 2012 were included in the study. In group 1 (n = 11), the incision was performed with a Bard-Parker #15 scalpel blade. In group 2 (n = 12), the incision was performed with monopolar electrocautery (blend function, 1; power, 20 Watts; frequency, 480 kHz). Clinical measurements for UL height and radiographic measurements for UL height and thickness were performed preoperatively and postoperatively (mean, 6 months). The collected data were subjected to statistical analysis to test the hypotheses of the study.
RESULTS: After excluding 2 patients, 21 patients were included in the sample. For UL height, clinical and radiographic measurements showed shortening of the UL, and the differences between pre- and postoperative values were statistically significant (P < .05) in the 2 groups. However, there was no statistically significant difference between groups 1 and 2 for UL height (P > .05) by clinical or radiographic measurements. For UL thickness, the 2 groups showed slight UL thickening in the lower portion, with no statistical difference between pre- and postoperative values (P > .05). Moreover, these results were not statistically different between the 2 groups (P = .754). In the uppermost portion of the UL, there was significant thinning in group 2 (P = .001), but not in group 1 (P = .076), and no statistical difference between groups (P = .535).
CONCLUSIONS: Maxillary circumvestibular incision causes significant shortening of the UL and thinning of the uppermost portion when using a #15 scalpel blade or electrocautery. However, there is no difference in UL dimensional changes when using either technique for maxillary circumvestibular incision.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-three patients who underwent surgically assisted maxillary expansion for transverse maxillary deficiency from April 2011 through April 2012 were included in the study. In group 1 (n = 11), the incision was performed with a Bard-Parker #15 scalpel blade. In group 2 (n = 12), the incision was performed with monopolar electrocautery (blend function, 1; power, 20 Watts; frequency, 480 kHz). Clinical measurements for UL height and radiographic measurements for UL height and thickness were performed preoperatively and postoperatively (mean, 6 months). The collected data were subjected to statistical analysis to test the hypotheses of the study.
RESULTS: After excluding 2 patients, 21 patients were included in the sample. For UL height, clinical and radiographic measurements showed shortening of the UL, and the differences between pre- and postoperative values were statistically significant (P < .05) in the 2 groups. However, there was no statistically significant difference between groups 1 and 2 for UL height (P > .05) by clinical or radiographic measurements. For UL thickness, the 2 groups showed slight UL thickening in the lower portion, with no statistical difference between pre- and postoperative values (P > .05). Moreover, these results were not statistically different between the 2 groups (P = .754). In the uppermost portion of the UL, there was significant thinning in group 2 (P = .001), but not in group 1 (P = .076), and no statistical difference between groups (P = .535).
CONCLUSIONS: Maxillary circumvestibular incision causes significant shortening of the UL and thinning of the uppermost portion when using a #15 scalpel blade or electrocautery. However, there is no difference in UL dimensional changes when using either technique for maxillary circumvestibular incision.