ObjectivesWe compared the transbuccal and transoral approaches in the management of mandibular angle fractures.Materials and MethodsSixty patients with mandibular angle fractures were randomly divided into two equal groups (A, transoral approach; group B, transbuccal approach) who received fracture reduction using a single 2.5 mm 4 holed miniplate with a bar using either of the two approaches. Intraoperatively, the surgical time and the ease of surgical assess for fixation were noted. Patients were followed at 1 week, 3 months, and 6 months postoperatively and evaluated clinically for post-surgical complications like scarring, infection, postoperative occlusal discrepancy, malunion, and non-union. Radiographically, the interpretation of fracture reduction was also performed by studying the fracture gap following reduction using orthopantomogram tracing. The data was tabulated and subjected to statistical analysis. A P-value less than 0.05 was considered significant.ResultsNo significant difference was seen between the two groups for variables like surgical time and ease of fixation. Radiographic interpretation of fracture reduction revealed statistical significance for group B from points B to D as compared to group A. No cases of malunion/non-union were noted. A single case of hypertrophic scar formation was noted in group B at 6 months postsurgery. Infection was noted in 2 patients in group B compared to 6 patients in group A. There was significantly more occlusal discrepancy in group A compared to group B at 1 week postoperatively, but no long standing discrepancy was noted in either group at the 6 months follow-up.ConclusionThe transbuccal approach was superior to the transoral approach with regard to radiographic reduction of the fracture gap, inconspicuous external scarring, and fewer postoperative complications. We preferred the transbuccal approach due to ease of use, minimal requirement for plate bending, and facilitation of plate placement in the neutral mid-point area of the mandible.

The use of probiotics is based on the concept that adding the right live microbes to the complex human system can result in physiological benefits. The benefit of fermented milk in human diet has been acknowledged since Vedic times; however, the scientific interest in this field was evoked by Ellie Metchinkoff who recommended that people should consume fermented milk containing lactobacilli to prolong their lives, as accelerated aging is due to autointoxication caused by the toxins produced by the gut microflora. They have been used to improve gastrointestinal health and their attractiveness has evinced interest to study their role in the promotion of oral health also. Studies have been widely carried out to establish the role of intestinal lactobacilli as probiotic to treat various gastrointestinal disorders, but only limited studies are available on the oral use of probiotics. The probiotic products usually contain lactobacilli and bifidobacteria, and their demand in the market is growing day by day. This paper provides an overview of various studies in the literature that emphasize on the role of probiotics to combat oral diseases and encourages more research in this field.

ObjectivesTo compare the efficacy of intravenous ondansetron (4 mg, 2 mL) and granisetron (2 mg, 2 mL) for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in patients during oral and maxillofacial surgical procedures under general anesthesia.Materials and MethodsA prospective, randomized, and double blind clinical study was carried out with 60 patients undergoing oral and maxillofacial surgical procedures under general anesthesia. Patients were divided into two groups of 30 individuals each. Approximately two minutes before induction of general anesthesia, each patient received either 4 mg (2 mL) ondansetron or 2 mg (2 mL) granisetron intravenously in a double blind manner. Balanced anesthetic technique was used for all patients. Patients were assessed for episodes of nausea, retching, vomiting, and the need for rescue antiemetic at intervals of 0-2, 3, 6, 12, and 24 hours after surgery. Incidence of complete response and adverse effects were assessed at 24 hours postoperatively. Data was tabulated and subjected to statistical analysis using the chi-square test, unpaired t-test, or the Mann-Whitney U-test as appropriate. A P-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.ResultsThere was no statistically significant difference between the two groups for incidence of PONV or the need for rescue antiemetic. Both study drugs were well tolerated with minimum adverse effects; the most common adverse effect was headache. The overall incidence of complete response in the granisetron group (86.7%) was significantly higher than the ondansetron group (60.0%).ConclusionGranisetron at an intravenous dose of 2 mg was found to be safe, well tolerated, and more effective by increasing the incidence of complete response compared to 4 mg intravenous ondansetron when used for antiemetic prophylaxis in maxillofacial surgery patients receiving general anesthesia. Benefits of granisetron include high receptor specificity and high potency, which make it a valuable alternative to ondansetron.

No abstract

Animal bites are a significant cause of morbidity and mortality across the globe and when involving the orofacial region, they commonly present to dental surgeons. Literature on their initial management provides a plethora of conflicting views and results and it is necessary to be up to date with the latest modalities of management of such facial injuries to give best functional and surgical outcomes to the patients. Antibiotics and anti-tetanus and anti-rabies vaccinations and immunoglobulins should be judiciously administered along with appropriate wound management.