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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |