Cargando…

Buccal fat pad versus sandwich graft for treatment of oroantral defects: A comparison

AIM: To compare the efficacy of buccal fat pad (BFP) graft with sandwich graft (hydroxyapatite crystals embedded within collagen sheath) in closure of oroantral defects. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 2-year prospective study was conducted; 20 patients were included in the study were divided into two grou...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hariram, Pal, U. S., Mohammad, Shadab, Singh, R. K., Singh, Gaurav, Malkunje, Laxman R.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2010
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3304177/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22442542
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0975-5950.69148
_version_ 1782226849233895424
author Hariram,
Pal, U. S.
Mohammad, Shadab
Singh, R. K.
Singh, Gaurav
Malkunje, Laxman R.
author_facet Hariram,
Pal, U. S.
Mohammad, Shadab
Singh, R. K.
Singh, Gaurav
Malkunje, Laxman R.
author_sort Hariram,
collection PubMed
description AIM: To compare the efficacy of buccal fat pad (BFP) graft with sandwich graft (hydroxyapatite crystals embedded within collagen sheath) in closure of oroantral defects. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 2-year prospective study was conducted; 20 patients were included in the study were divided into two groups having 10 patients in each. Group I patients underwent surgical closure of oroantral fistula with sandwich graft and Group II patients with buccal pad of fat. RESULTS: In Group I, the mean pain scores were 7.60 ± 0.84, 3.90 ± 1.10, 2.30 ± 1.16, 1.10 ± 0.99 and 0.40 ± 0.70 at immediate post-op., 1, 3, 6 and 12 week time intervals, respectively, whereas in Group II these were 7.30 ± 0.67, 3.50 ± 0.53, 1.70 ± 0.48, 1.00 ± 0.47 and 0.30 ± 0.48, respectively, at the corresponding time intervals. In Group I, swelling was seen to be present in 10 (100%), 7 (70%), 2 (20%) and nil (0%) patients at 1, 3, 6 and 12 weeks, respectively, whereas in Group II, it was seen to be present in 10 (100%), 10 (100%), 2 (20%) and nil (0%) patients at the corresponding time intervals. At 1 week, infection was seen to be present in 1 (10%) patient of Group I and 2 (20%) patients of Group II. At 3 and 6 weeks, infection was seen to be present in 1 (10%) patient of Group I and none of the patients of group II. No radiologic evidence of bone formation was seen in either group up to 1 week. At 3 week interval, there were 6 (60%) patients in Group I and nil (0%) in Group II showing bone formation, thus showing a statistically significant difference between the two groups. By 6 week time interval, radiologic evidence of bone formation was seen in 9 (90%) patients of Group I but in no patients of Group II, thereby showing a statistically very highly significant (P < 0.001) difference between the two groups. In Group I, in 1 (10%) patient, graft was rejected by first week; however, no further graft rejection took place. In Group II, no case of graft rejection was reported. CONCLUSIONS: The sandwich graft technique yielded a more promising closure of oroantral communication by provision of a more biologically apt base in terms of regeneration of lost bone structure at the floor of the maxillary sinus
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3304177
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2010
publisher Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-33041772012-03-22 Buccal fat pad versus sandwich graft for treatment of oroantral defects: A comparison Hariram, Pal, U. S. Mohammad, Shadab Singh, R. K. Singh, Gaurav Malkunje, Laxman R. Natl J Maxillofac Surg Original Article AIM: To compare the efficacy of buccal fat pad (BFP) graft with sandwich graft (hydroxyapatite crystals embedded within collagen sheath) in closure of oroantral defects. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 2-year prospective study was conducted; 20 patients were included in the study were divided into two groups having 10 patients in each. Group I patients underwent surgical closure of oroantral fistula with sandwich graft and Group II patients with buccal pad of fat. RESULTS: In Group I, the mean pain scores were 7.60 ± 0.84, 3.90 ± 1.10, 2.30 ± 1.16, 1.10 ± 0.99 and 0.40 ± 0.70 at immediate post-op., 1, 3, 6 and 12 week time intervals, respectively, whereas in Group II these were 7.30 ± 0.67, 3.50 ± 0.53, 1.70 ± 0.48, 1.00 ± 0.47 and 0.30 ± 0.48, respectively, at the corresponding time intervals. In Group I, swelling was seen to be present in 10 (100%), 7 (70%), 2 (20%) and nil (0%) patients at 1, 3, 6 and 12 weeks, respectively, whereas in Group II, it was seen to be present in 10 (100%), 10 (100%), 2 (20%) and nil (0%) patients at the corresponding time intervals. At 1 week, infection was seen to be present in 1 (10%) patient of Group I and 2 (20%) patients of Group II. At 3 and 6 weeks, infection was seen to be present in 1 (10%) patient of Group I and none of the patients of group II. No radiologic evidence of bone formation was seen in either group up to 1 week. At 3 week interval, there were 6 (60%) patients in Group I and nil (0%) in Group II showing bone formation, thus showing a statistically significant difference between the two groups. By 6 week time interval, radiologic evidence of bone formation was seen in 9 (90%) patients of Group I but in no patients of Group II, thereby showing a statistically very highly significant (P < 0.001) difference between the two groups. In Group I, in 1 (10%) patient, graft was rejected by first week; however, no further graft rejection took place. In Group II, no case of graft rejection was reported. CONCLUSIONS: The sandwich graft technique yielded a more promising closure of oroantral communication by provision of a more biologically apt base in terms of regeneration of lost bone structure at the floor of the maxillary sinus Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2010 /pmc/articles/PMC3304177/ /pubmed/22442542 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0975-5950.69148 Text en Copyright: © National Journal of Maxillofacial Surgery http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Hariram,
Pal, U. S.
Mohammad, Shadab
Singh, R. K.
Singh, Gaurav
Malkunje, Laxman R.
Buccal fat pad versus sandwich graft for treatment of oroantral defects: A comparison
title Buccal fat pad versus sandwich graft for treatment of oroantral defects: A comparison
title_full Buccal fat pad versus sandwich graft for treatment of oroantral defects: A comparison
title_fullStr Buccal fat pad versus sandwich graft for treatment of oroantral defects: A comparison
title_full_unstemmed Buccal fat pad versus sandwich graft for treatment of oroantral defects: A comparison
title_short Buccal fat pad versus sandwich graft for treatment of oroantral defects: A comparison
title_sort buccal fat pad versus sandwich graft for treatment of oroantral defects: a comparison
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3304177/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22442542
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0975-5950.69148
work_keys_str_mv AT hariram buccalfatpadversussandwichgraftfortreatmentoforoantraldefectsacomparison
AT palus buccalfatpadversussandwichgraftfortreatmentoforoantraldefectsacomparison
AT mohammadshadab buccalfatpadversussandwichgraftfortreatmentoforoantraldefectsacomparison
AT singhrk buccalfatpadversussandwichgraftfortreatmentoforoantraldefectsacomparison
AT singhgaurav buccalfatpadversussandwichgraftfortreatmentoforoantraldefectsacomparison
AT malkunjelaxmanr buccalfatpadversussandwichgraftfortreatmentoforoantraldefectsacomparison