1.Prevalence of complications associated with polymer-based alloplastic materials in nasal dorsal augmentation: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Seied Omid KEYHAN ; Shaqayeq RAMEZANZADE ; Reza Golvardi YAZDI ; Mohammad Amin VALIPOUR ; Hamid Reza FALLAHI ; Madjid SHAKIBA ; Mahsa AEINEHVAND
Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 2022;44(1):17-
Background:
Various techniques with different grafts and implants have been proposed to establish a smooth and symmetric nasal dorsum with adequate function. Broadly, two categories of materials have been used in this regard: alloplastic implant materials and autograft materials. The aim of these meta-analyses is to explore the incidence of complications after dorsum augmentation surgery using alloplastic materials.
Materials and methods:
After duplication removal 491 papers remained that title and abstract were assessed for eligibility. Regarding the study type, 27 observational studies were included, 21 retrospective and 6 prospective case series. A total of 3803 cases were enrolled in this systematic review and meta-analysis.ResultTwenty-seven articles reported on complications and outcomes of dorsal augmentation rhinoplasty with synthetic materials. In a random-effects model, the weighted mean percentage was 2.75% (95% CI 1.61 to 4.17%). the weighted mean percentage were 1.91% (95% CI 0.77 to 3.54%), 0.72% (95% CI 0.316 to 1.31%), and 0.78% (95% CI 0.43 to 1.24%) respectively.
Conclusion
The widely used alloplasts were expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE), high-density polyethylene, and silicone. The total rates for complications, infection, deviation, irregularity, hematoma, extrusion, and overcorrection were 2.75%, 1.91%, 0.72%, 0.70%, 0.78%, and 0.49%, respectively. The revision rate, based on the random effects model, was 6.40% with 95%CI (3.84 to 9.57).
2.Vaccine-associated complications: a comparative multicenter evaluation among dental practitioners and dental students—which candidate vaccine is more safe in SARS COV II, Gam-COVID-Vac (Sputnik V), ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AstraZeneca), BBV152 (Covaxin), or BBIBP-CorV(Sinopharm)?
Behzad HOUSHMAND ; Seied Omid KEYHAN ; Hamid Reza FALLAHI ; Shaqayeq RAMEZANZADE ; Erfan SADEGHI ; Parisa YOUSEFI
Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 2022;44(1):3-
Background:
The rapidly developed vaccines against the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 carry a risk of provoking side effects. This study aimed to evaluate current vaccination non-serious/serious side effects.
Methods:
A multicenter electronic questionnaire via an online platform was conducted over a 1-week period among vaccinated dental staff and dental students inquiring whether they experienced vaccine-related side-effects after vaccine administration.
Results:
A total of 1205 respondents with a mean age of 39 (SD: 12) were retained for the analyses. The following vaccines were reported; Gam-COVID-Vac (Sputnik V), ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AstraZeneca), BBV152 (Covaxin), or BBIBP-CorV (Sinopharm). The majority of respondents received ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (51.1%) and Gam-COVID-Vac (37.6%). The symptoms most frequently reported after vaccination were fatigue (79%), local pain in the injection site (77.4%), malaise (73%), and body pain (71.1%). Enrollees reported more onset of reactions on 0–12 h (44.1%) and 12–24 h (29.0%) after vaccine administration (p value <0.001). In 75.7%, the side effects last for up to 3 days. Merely 5.5% of cases reported the presence of side effects after the first week. Individuals with a history of SARSCoV-2 and other infections (MERS, influenza, and EBV) were more likely to report a number of unserious systemic side effects.
Conclusion
The commonly reported adverse events were in line with similar studies. We have concerns with the frequency of serious adverse effects. This work necessitates the need for further clinical assessments with larger sample sizes.
3.Zygomatic implants placed in atrophic maxilla: an overview of current systematic reviews and meta-analysis
Shaqayeq RAMEZANZADE ; Julian YATES ; Frank J. TUMINELLI ; Seied Omid KEYHAN ; Parisa YOUSEFI ; Jose LOPEZ-LOPEZ
Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 2021;43(1):1-
Background:
Zygomatic implants are a treatment option for severely atrophic maxilla.Main text: This study aimed to summarize and evaluate systematic reviews assessing the clinical outcomes of zygomatic implants including survival/failure rate and complications. PubMed-MEDLINE, Google Scholar, LILACS, and the Cochrane Database were searched up to April 2020. Risk of bias assessment was conducted by the AMSTAR tool. Initial searches yielded 175 studies. These were assessed, and following title abstract and full-text evaluation, 7 studies (2 meta-analyses) were included in the final review. According to the AMSTAR tool, 1 was deemed high quality, 4 were classified as medium, and 2 as low quality. The mean AMSTAR score (±SD) was 5.28 of 9 (±2.36) ranging from 2/9 to 9/9. The reported survival rates ranged from 95.2 to 100% except for resected maxillas, which established higher failure rates up to 21.43%. Concerning the complications with the zygomatic implants, various surgical and prosthetic complications were reported with sinusitis being the most frequently observed complication. Zygomatic implants appears to offer a promising alternative to formal bone grafting techniques with lower costs, less complications, less morbidity, shorter treatment times, and comparably high survival rates.
Conclusion
Complications were rare and usually easy to manage. However, the treatment should be directed by appropriately trained clinicians with noticeable surgical experience.