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.

The use of aromatherapy for the reduction of anxiety levels during dental treatment procedures has been well established in the literature; however, there is limited evidence regarding its efficacy. The present meta-analysis is an attempt to assess the association between the use of aromatherapy and anxiety levels among dental patients.A comprehensive search was conducted across Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, EBSCO host, Cochrane databases, and Google Scholar for studies evaluating aromatherapy and anxiety level among dental patients. PRISMA guidelines were followed for the meta-analysis. Randomized and cluster-randomized trials comparing aromatherapy with controls were included. The random-effects model was used to assess the mean differences in anxiety levels of patients visiting dental OPD. The significance value was set at P < 0.05. Six studies were identified that met the requirements for inclusion. Aromatherapy was significantly associated with reduction in patient anxiety levels during dental treatment (pooled mean difference: -3.36 [95% CI, -3.77 – -2.95, P = 0.00001). Low heterogeneity was noted between studies (I2 = 1%, P = 0.41) analyzed in the meta-analysis. High certainty of the evidence was obtained from the association between the use of aromatherapy and dental anxiety. This meta-analysis suggests that aromatherapy is effective in reducing dental anxiety. When used judiciously, the results of this work should encourage the use of aromatherapy to reduce patient anxiety levels during dental procedures

The use of aromatherapy for the reduction of anxiety levels during dental treatment procedures has been well established in the literature; however, there is limited evidence regarding its efficacy. The present meta-analysis is an attempt to assess the association between the use of aromatherapy and anxiety levels among dental patients.A comprehensive search was conducted across Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, EBSCO host, Cochrane databases, and Google Scholar for studies evaluating aromatherapy and anxiety level among dental patients. PRISMA guidelines were followed for the meta-analysis. Randomized and cluster-randomized trials comparing aromatherapy with controls were included. The random-effects model was used to assess the mean differences in anxiety levels of patients visiting dental OPD. The significance value was set at P < 0.05. Six studies were identified that met the requirements for inclusion. Aromatherapy was significantly associated with reduction in patient anxiety levels during dental treatment (pooled mean difference: -3.36 [95% CI, -3.77 – -2.95, P = 0.00001). Low heterogeneity was noted between studies (I2 = 1%, P = 0.41) analyzed in the meta-analysis. High certainty of the evidence was obtained from the association between the use of aromatherapy and dental anxiety. This meta-analysis suggests that aromatherapy is effective in reducing dental anxiety. When used judiciously, the results of this work should encourage the use of aromatherapy to reduce patient anxiety levels during dental procedures

Cranial prostheses are frequently required for patients with cranial defects secondary to trauma, decompressive craniectomy, or other pathologies. When the resected or craniotomized bone cannot be reused, cranioplasty with artificial materials offers both aesthetic and protective benefits. However, high-end custom-made options, like polyether ether ketone or titanium prostheses, are expensive and not widely available. Heat-cured polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) prostheses are generally preferred over their cold-cured counterparts. In-house dental laboratories can provide a cost-effective and practical solution by employing a lost-wax technique akin to denture fabrication, utilizing a three-dimensional printed custom open mold. Fabricating large heatcured PMMA cranioplasts presents certain challenges, such as the need for large flasks and potential porosity. These can be overcome by using a large stainless steel container (a tiffin box) and M-Seal epoxy to ensure an airtight curing process. This method can be easily adopted by standard dental laboratories. At our center, four patients have successfully fitted with cranioplasty prostheses produced using this technique. Even though the patients are outside of the scope of this technical note all of them indicated high satisfaction, and no complications were reported. This straightforward approach demonstrates that in-house, heat-cured PMMA cranioplasts can represent a viable, cost-effective option for cranial reconstruction.

Cranial prostheses are frequently required for patients with cranial defects secondary to trauma, decompressive craniectomy, or other pathologies. When the resected or craniotomized bone cannot be reused, cranioplasty with artificial materials offers both aesthetic and protective benefits. However, high-end custom-made options, like polyether ether ketone or titanium prostheses, are expensive and not widely available. Heat-cured polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) prostheses are generally preferred over their cold-cured counterparts. In-house dental laboratories can provide a cost-effective and practical solution by employing a lost-wax technique akin to denture fabrication, utilizing a three-dimensional printed custom open mold. Fabricating large heatcured PMMA cranioplasts presents certain challenges, such as the need for large flasks and potential porosity. These can be overcome by using a large stainless steel container (a tiffin box) and M-Seal epoxy to ensure an airtight curing process. This method can be easily adopted by standard dental laboratories. At our center, four patients have successfully fitted with cranioplasty prostheses produced using this technique. Even though the patients are outside of the scope of this technical note all of them indicated high satisfaction, and no complications were reported. This straightforward approach demonstrates that in-house, heat-cured PMMA cranioplasts can represent a viable, cost-effective option for cranial reconstruction.

Cranial prostheses are frequently required for patients with cranial defects secondary to trauma, decompressive craniectomy, or other pathologies. When the resected or craniotomized bone cannot be reused, cranioplasty with artificial materials offers both aesthetic and protective benefits. However, high-end custom-made options, like polyether ether ketone or titanium prostheses, are expensive and not widely available. Heat-cured polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) prostheses are generally preferred over their cold-cured counterparts. In-house dental laboratories can provide a cost-effective and practical solution by employing a lost-wax technique akin to denture fabrication, utilizing a three-dimensional printed custom open mold. Fabricating large heatcured PMMA cranioplasts presents certain challenges, such as the need for large flasks and potential porosity. These can be overcome by using a large stainless steel container (a tiffin box) and M-Seal epoxy to ensure an airtight curing process. This method can be easily adopted by standard dental laboratories. At our center, four patients have successfully fitted with cranioplasty prostheses produced using this technique. Even though the patients are outside of the scope of this technical note all of them indicated high satisfaction, and no complications were reported. This straightforward approach demonstrates that in-house, heat-cured PMMA cranioplasts can represent a viable, cost-effective option for cranial reconstruction.

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.