Impacted mandibular third molar removal is the most common procedure performed by oral and maxillofacial surgeons. An array of alternative procedures have been suggested, like operculectomy in cases of pericoronitis and coronectomy in certain cases. However, these procedures pose several disadvantages, and we propose a relatively non-invasive ‘straight lift technique’. This technique is specifically useful in straightening abnormally positioned mesioangular third molars as a substitute of complete removal. This can improve tooth function, eliminate the need for surgical intervention, and reduce the risk of complications associated with third molar removal.

Dentoalveolar (DA) trauma, which can involve tooth, alveolar bone, and surrounding soft tissues, is a significant dentofacial emergency. In emergency settings, physicians might lack comprehensive knowledge of timely procedures, causing delays for specialist referral. This systematic review assesses the literature on isolated DA fractures, emphasizing intervention timing and splinting techniques and duration in both children and adults. This systematic review adhered to PRISMA guidelines and involved a thorough search across PubMed, Google Scholar, Semantic Scholar, and the Cochrane Library from January 1980 to December 2022. Inclusion and exclusion criteria guided study selection, with data extraction and analysis centered on demographics, etiology, injury site, diagnostics, treatment timelines, and outcomes in pediatric (2-12 years) and adult (>12 years) populations. This review analyzed 26 studies, categorized by age into pediatrics (2-12 years) and adults (>12 years). Falls were a common etiology, primarily affecting the anterior maxilla. Immediate management involved replantation, repositioning, and splinting within 24 hours (pediatric) or 48 hours (adult). Composite resin-bonded splints were common. Endodontic treatment was done within a timeframe of 3 days to 12 weeks for children and 2-12 weeks for adults.Tailored management based on patient age, tooth development stage, time elapsed, and resource availability is essential.

Purpose: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a prevalent and distressing complication, especially in laparoscopic surgeries. This review compares the efficacy and safety of palonosetron and ondansetron in preventing PONV after laparoscopic surgery. Methods: A systematic review was conducted in PubMed, Google Scholar, Semantic Scholar, and Cochrane Library to identify comparative studies that reported the efficacy (nausea and vomiting) at three postoperative time points T1 (0–2 hours), T2 (2–6 hours), T3 (6–24 hours) and safety (incidence of adverse effects). Meta-analysis of relative risk was performed using a random effect model and subgroup analysis based on factors such as antiemetic dose and timing of administration, type of surgery, and anesthetic agents. Results: Twenty-one randomized controlled trials were published between 2011 and 2022, involving 2,043 participants. Nineteen trials were included in the meta-analysis (efficacy, 17;safety, 11). The pooled risk ratio revealed that patients receiving palonosetron demonstrated significantly less likelihood of developing nausea and vomiting at various postoperative time points. Subgroup analysis indicated significantly less PONV when palonosetron was administered before intubation and in combination with isoflurane anesthesia. Headache, dizziness, constipation, and drowsiness were the most commonly reported. The safety profiles of palonosetron and ondansetron were comparable. Conclusion Palonosetron exhibits superior efficacy within the first 24 hours postoperatively and requires less rescue antiemetic intervention compared to ondansetron in laparoscopic surgery patients. Both demonstrate nearly comparable safety profiles. Future trials focusing on cardiac safety (QT interval) and cost consideration are needed.

Purpose: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a prevalent and distressing complication, especially in laparoscopic surgeries. This review compares the efficacy and safety of palonosetron and ondansetron in preventing PONV after laparoscopic surgery. Methods: A systematic review was conducted in PubMed, Google Scholar, Semantic Scholar, and Cochrane Library to identify comparative studies that reported the efficacy (nausea and vomiting) at three postoperative time points T1 (0–2 hours), T2 (2–6 hours), T3 (6–24 hours) and safety (incidence of adverse effects). Meta-analysis of relative risk was performed using a random effect model and subgroup analysis based on factors such as antiemetic dose and timing of administration, type of surgery, and anesthetic agents. Results: Twenty-one randomized controlled trials were published between 2011 and 2022, involving 2,043 participants. Nineteen trials were included in the meta-analysis (efficacy, 17;safety, 11). The pooled risk ratio revealed that patients receiving palonosetron demonstrated significantly less likelihood of developing nausea and vomiting at various postoperative time points. Subgroup analysis indicated significantly less PONV when palonosetron was administered before intubation and in combination with isoflurane anesthesia. Headache, dizziness, constipation, and drowsiness were the most commonly reported. The safety profiles of palonosetron and ondansetron were comparable. Conclusion Palonosetron exhibits superior efficacy within the first 24 hours postoperatively and requires less rescue antiemetic intervention compared to ondansetron in laparoscopic surgery patients. Both demonstrate nearly comparable safety profiles. Future trials focusing on cardiac safety (QT interval) and cost consideration are needed.

Purpose: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a prevalent and distressing complication, especially in laparoscopic surgeries. This review compares the efficacy and safety of palonosetron and ondansetron in preventing PONV after laparoscopic surgery. Methods: A systematic review was conducted in PubMed, Google Scholar, Semantic Scholar, and Cochrane Library to identify comparative studies that reported the efficacy (nausea and vomiting) at three postoperative time points T1 (0–2 hours), T2 (2–6 hours), T3 (6–24 hours) and safety (incidence of adverse effects). Meta-analysis of relative risk was performed using a random effect model and subgroup analysis based on factors such as antiemetic dose and timing of administration, type of surgery, and anesthetic agents. Results: Twenty-one randomized controlled trials were published between 2011 and 2022, involving 2,043 participants. Nineteen trials were included in the meta-analysis (efficacy, 17;safety, 11). The pooled risk ratio revealed that patients receiving palonosetron demonstrated significantly less likelihood of developing nausea and vomiting at various postoperative time points. Subgroup analysis indicated significantly less PONV when palonosetron was administered before intubation and in combination with isoflurane anesthesia. Headache, dizziness, constipation, and drowsiness were the most commonly reported. The safety profiles of palonosetron and ondansetron were comparable. Conclusion Palonosetron exhibits superior efficacy within the first 24 hours postoperatively and requires less rescue antiemetic intervention compared to ondansetron in laparoscopic surgery patients. Both demonstrate nearly comparable safety profiles. Future trials focusing on cardiac safety (QT interval) and cost consideration are needed.