The objective is to evaluate the basic complications such as necrosis, infection, fistula, dehiscence, and hematoma at recipient site and the donor site; as well as the incidence in failure of the Free Fibula Flap when used in mandibular reconstruction. After thorough electronic search on different databases, applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, following the PRISMA guidelines and assessing the risk of bias; 6 articles were deemed eligible for this analysis. The total number of recipient site complications was the highest, i.e., 30.49% followed by the donor site complications with 9.75% and flap loss with 9.34%. The authors emphasize that success of the Free Fibula Flap depends not only on the major post-operative complications but also on the avoidance of the basic complications that occur at the recipient site as well as the donor site. KEYWORDS: Free Fibula Flap, Mandibular Reconstruction, Complications.

INTRODUCTION: Fibroma is the most common benign tumor-like lesion of the oral cavity. They are non-neoplastic brous overgrowths; usually reactive or irritational in nature. Different kinds of surgical treatments have been employed for the removal of bromas, which include simple excision using scalpel, laser technology, electrical surgery, and cryotherapy. This report aimed at comparing two different treatment modalities for excision of broma- laser and scalpel. METHODS: Two cases of irritational broma, one using a diode laser and another using scalpel, were undertaken for comparison. RESULTS: Parameters like time taken for the procedure, intra-operative bleeding, ease of surgery for the surgeon, and the post-operative wound healing were evaluated with both the techniques. Excision with laser was an easier procedure for the surgeon and the time taken was less than excision with scalpel. Additionally, bleeding was controlled better and a signicantly faster healing period was observed with laser as compared to excision with scalpel. CONCLUSION: Excision with laser provides better working conditions and has a quicker and superior post-operative healing over the scalpel surgery

Purpose: Intermaxillary xation (IMF) is an essential principle in the management of mandibular fractures; but with the recent advent of open reduction and internal xation (ORIF), the use of IMF is almost limited to intraoperative procedure only. This study aims to investigate and compare the effectiveness of Erich arch bar & intermaxillary xation (IMF) screws for the management of mandibular fractures. Materials And Method: A randomized prospective study was conducted on 20 patients with mandibular fracture, who were randomly allotted to two groups. Group A patients received intermaxillary xation using Erich arch bar and group B patients received IMF screws. The parameters assessed were time taken for application and removal of appliance, stability of occlusion, glove perforation, and pre-and post-operative plaque accumulation. Results: The mean time for placement of the Erich arch bar was 43.10 minutes as compared to 18.60 minutes with intermaxillary xation screws. Better occlusal stability was shown with an arch bar over IMF screws, and was statistically signicant. More glove tears or penetrations occurred during application in group A than Group B (p<0.01). Also, The Plaque Index assessment on removal of appliance showed a statistically signicant difference between the two groups; higher in the arch bar group. Conclusion: This study indicates that with acceptable occlusal stability, IMF screws technique is an effective and favourable alternative to Erich arch bars for temporary intermaxillary xation in mandibular fractures.

BACKGROUND: Profound pulpal anaesthesia using the inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) technique for extraction of mandibular posterior teeth is difcult to achieve. Several authors emphasised the effects of intraligamentary injection anaesthesia (ILA), also known as periodontal injection; as a primary or supplementary technique. The aim of this study was to compare the efcacy of ILA over IANB technique in providing adequate and superior anaesthesia for extraction of mandibular premolars and molars. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 30 patients requiring bilateral extractions of mandibular posterior teeth were selected. The parameters evaluated were subjective (numbness) and objective (pain on gingival probing) signs of anaesthesia, difference in pain perception during the procedure; and duration of anaesthesia for ILA (Group A) and IANB technique (Group B). RESULTS: The results showed that no difference was found in terms of subjective and objective evaluation of anaesthesia between the groups. A statistically signicant difference was seen in Group A, where intraligamentary injection anaesthesia showed less pain perception than the IANB technique. However, longer duration of anaesthesia was noted in Group B. CONCLUSION: With fewer failures and complications, the intraligamentary injection can be effectively used as a primary technique to alleviate pain and profoundly anaesthetize the mandibular posterior teeth during dento-alveolar extraction procedure.