1.Comparison of minimally invasive versus conventional open harvesting technique for iliac bone graft in secondary alveolar bone grafting in cleft palate patients: a systematic review
Aditi SAHA ; Sonal SHAH ; Pushkar WAKNIS ; Prathamesh BHUJBAL ; Sharvika AHER ; Vibha VASWANI
Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons 2019;45(5):241-253
This study evaluated and compared the donor site morbidity following minimally invasive and conventional open harvesting of iliac bone for secondary alveolar bone grafting in cleft palate patients. A thorough electronic search of PubMed, Google Scholar, EMBASE, and an institutional library and manual search of various journals was done; Inclusion criteria: 1) full-text articles using a minimally invasive or conventional open harvesting technique for iliac bone for secondary alveolar grafting in cleft palate patients and 2) articles published between January 1, 2001 and June 30, 2017 and Exclusion criteria: 1) articles published in languages other than English, 2) case reports, case series, animal studies, in vitro studies, and letters to the editor, and 3) full-text article unavailable even after writing to the authors. Preliminary screening of 274 studies excluded 223 studies for not meeting the eligibility criteria. Of the remaining 51 studies, 19 were removed for being duplicates. Of the remaining 32 studies, 15 were excluded after reading the abstract. Of the 17 studies that were left, 2 were excluded because they were in a language other than English, and 2 were excluded because the study group did not mention cleft palate patients. Thus, 13 studies providing results for a total of 654 patients were included in this qualitative synthesis. Minimally invasive bone graft harvest techniques are better than the conventional open iliac bone harvest method because they offer shorter operative time, decreased requirement for pain medications, less pain on discharge, and a shorter hospital stay.
Alveolar Bone Grafting
;
Animals
;
Bone Transplantation
;
Cleft Palate
;
Humans
;
In Vitro Techniques
;
Length of Stay
;
Mass Screening
;
Methods
;
Operative Time
;
Tissue Donors
;
Transplants
;
Writing
2.An in vivo study comparing efficacy of 0.25% and 0.5% bupivacaine in infraorbital nerve block for postoperative analgesia
Aditi SAHA ; Sonal SHAH ; Pushkar WAKNIS ; Sharvika AHER ; Prathamesh BHUJBAL ; Vibha VASWANI
Journal of Dental Anesthesia and Pain Medicine 2019;19(4):209-215
BACKGROUND: Pain is an unpleasant sensation ranging from mild localized discomfort to agony and is one of the most commonly experienced symptoms in oral surgery. Usually, local anesthetic agents and analgesics are used for pain control in oral surgical procedures. Local anesthetic agents including lignocaine and bupivacaine are routinely used in varying concentrations. The present study was designed to evaluate and compare the efficacy of 0.25% and 0.5% bupivacaine for postoperative analgesia in infraorbital nerve block. METHODS: Forty-one patients undergoing bilateral maxillary orthodontic extraction received 0.5% bupivacaine (n = 41) on one side and 0.25% bupivacaine (n = 41) on the other side at an interval of 7 d. The parameters evaluated for both the bupivacaine concentrations were onset of action, pain during procedure (visual analog scale score [VAS]), and duration of action. The results were noted, tabulated, and analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. RESULTS: The onset of action of 0.5% bupivacaine was quicker than that of 0.25% bupivacaine, but the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.306). No significant difference was found between the solutions for VAS scores (P = 0.221) scores and duration of action (P = 0.662). CONCLUSION: There was no significant difference between 0.25% bupivacaine and 0.5% bupivacaine in terms of onset of action, pain during procedure, and duration of action. The use of 0.25% bupivacaine is recommended.
Analgesia
;
Analgesics
;
Anesthesia, Local
;
Anesthetics
;
Bupivacaine
;
Humans
;
Lidocaine
;
Nerve Block
;
Oral Surgical Procedures
;
Pain, Postoperative
;
Sensation
;
Surgery, Oral
;
Tooth Extraction
3.Comparison of minimally invasive versus conventional open harvesting technique for iliac bone graft in secondary alveolar bone grafting in cleft palate patients: a systematic review
Aditi SAHA ; Sonal SHAH ; Pushkar WAKNIS ; Prathamesh BHUJBAL ; Sharvika AHER ; Vibha VASWANI
Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons 2019;45(5):241-253
This study evaluated and compared the donor site morbidity following minimally invasive and conventional open harvesting of iliac bone for secondary alveolar bone grafting in cleft palate patients. A thorough electronic search of PubMed, Google Scholar, EMBASE, and an institutional library and manual search of various journals was done; Inclusion criteria: 1) full-text articles using a minimally invasive or conventional open harvesting technique for iliac bone for secondary alveolar grafting in cleft palate patients and 2) articles published between January 1, 2001 and June 30, 2017 and Exclusion criteria: 1) articles published in languages other than English, 2) case reports, case series, animal studies, in vitro studies, and letters to the editor, and 3) full-text article unavailable even after writing to the authors. Preliminary screening of 274 studies excluded 223 studies for not meeting the eligibility criteria. Of the remaining 51 studies, 19 were removed for being duplicates. Of the remaining 32 studies, 15 were excluded after reading the abstract. Of the 17 studies that were left, 2 were excluded because they were in a language other than English, and 2 were excluded because the study group did not mention cleft palate patients. Thus, 13 studies providing results for a total of 654 patients were included in this qualitative synthesis. Minimally invasive bone graft harvest techniques are better than the conventional open iliac bone harvest method because they offer shorter operative time, decreased requirement for pain medications, less pain on discharge, and a shorter hospital stay.