Cargando…
Reconstruction of microstomia considering their functional status
BACKGROUND: Microstomia is defined as a condition with a small sized-mouth that results in functional impairment such as difficulty with food intake, pronunciation, and poor oral hygiene and cosmetic problems. Several treatment methods for microstomia have been proposed. None of them are universally...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Korean Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7349138/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32630987 http://dx.doi.org/10.7181/acfs.2020.00220 |
Sumario: | BACKGROUND: Microstomia is defined as a condition with a small sized-mouth that results in functional impairment such as difficulty with food intake, pronunciation, and poor oral hygiene and cosmetic problems. Several treatment methods for microstomia have been proposed. None of them are universally applicable. This study aims at analyzing the cases treated at our institution critically reviewing the pertinent literature. METHODS: The medical records of all microstomia patients treated in our hospital from November 2015 to April 2018 were reviewed retrospectively. Of these, all patients who received surgical treatment for microstomia were included in the study and analyzed for etiology, chief complaint, surgical method, and outcomes. The functional outcomes of mouth opening and intercommissure distance before and after the surgery were evaluated. The cosmetic results were assessed according to the patients’ satisfaction. RESULTS: Five patients with microstomia were corrected. Two cases were due to scar contracture after chemical burn, two cases derived from repeated excision of skin cancer, and one patient suffered sequela of Stevens-Johnson syndrome. The following surgical methods were applied: one full-thickness skin graft on the buccal mucosa, three buccal mucosal advancement flaps after triangular excision of the mouth corner, and one local buccal mucosal flap. Mouth opening was increased by 6.0 mm, and the intercommissure distance improved by 7.2 mm on average. Follow-up was 9.6 months (range, 5–14 months). Cosmetic assessment was as follows: two patients found the results excellent, three judged it as good. CONCLUSION: Microstomia has several causes. In order to achieve optimal functional recovery and aesthetic improvement it is important to precisely evaluate the etiologic factors and the severity of the impairment and to carefully choose the appropriate surgical method. |
---|