Mega Prothesis: A Ray of Hope in Tumor Resection | Chapter 8 | An Overview of Disease and Health Research Vol. 4

Megaprostheses consistently produce positive outcomes for as long as patients are alive. Most methods provide instant weight-bearing and replace damaged bone tissue rather than trying to promote bone healing. There is strong evidence to support the use of these systems, which can undoubtedly improve patients' quality of life, even for those with a poor prognosis. Literature shows that not only these prostheses used in tumour patients, but they are also used to treat non-oncologic patients. They have become the most popular reconstruction technique following segmental resection of the long bones in the extremities during the past three decades. These devices are a promising substitute that may lead to quick recuperation, joint function restoration, and, in the worst situations, amputation avoidance. Megaprostheses are comparatively simple to operate, and their highly modular systems enable a wide range of resections to accommodate as many patients as feasible. There are many different kinds of megaprostheses implants available for limb salvage surgery. They differ in their shape, size, make and functioning. An important issue that significantly affects prosthesis survival is prosthetic joint infection. An elevated risk of infection is linked to the usage of megaprostheses.

 

Author(s) Details

Noel Samuel Macwan, PT

College of Physiotherapy, Sumandeep Vidyapeeth (Deemed to be University), Piparia, Waghodia, Vadodara, Gujarat, India.

 

Please see the book here:- https://doi.org/10.9734/bpi/aodhr/v4/5954

Comparing Changes in Bone Level Distal to the Mandibular Second Molar (MSM) in Patients with an Extracted IMTM Versus Non-extracted IMTM Using OPG | Chapter 13 | Medical Research and Its Applications Vol. 7

Aim: The present study compared the changes in bone level distal to the mandibular second molar (MSM) in patients with an extracted IMTM versus non-extracted IMTM using OPG.

Background: The most common impacted tooth is the mandibular third molar, which can be detected using orthopantomography (OPG) and may have detrimental effects, including bone loss, on the neighboring mandibular second molar (MSM).

Methods: In this retrospective case-control study, 160 orthopantomograms (OPGs) of 80 patients who attended Dental Hospital of the University of Barcelona (HOUB) were randomly selected. Participants were stratified into a study group and a control group.

Results: Males and females show bone gain in the study group and bone loss in the control group. However, the difference in bone-level change was not statistically significant regarding gender in the study group. Within the study group, participants of 29–39 years show significant (p-value = 0.042) bone gain after extraction compared to other age groups. However, the control group shows bone loss in all age groups. our study solely focused on the radiographic findings without considering clinical parameters, such as those obtained via clinical probing. Thus, further studies correlating findings based on OPGs with three-dimensional imaging, such as cone-beam computed tomography and clinical probing, and the use of a larger sample size are required to validate the findings of the current study.

Conclusions: Bone improvements distal to the MSM were observed after the extraction of an IMTM compared to when an IMTM was not extracted. The findings of this study suggest that considering the routine use, affordability, and convenience of OPG, this method may be beneficial for visualizing a patient’s bone status after the extraction of an impacted molar.

 

Author (s) Details

 

Hassan Assiri Ahmed
Department of Odontostomatology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, School of Dentistry, University Campus of Bellvitge, University of Barcelona, Barcelona Dental Hospital [HOUB], 08970 Barcelona, Spain and Department of Diagnostic Science and Oral Biology, Faculty of Dentistry, King Khalid University, Abha 61421, Saudi Arabia.

 

Jose López-López
Department of Odontostomatology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, School of Dentistry, University Campus of Bellvitge, University of Barcelona, Barcelona Dental Hospital [HOUB], 08970 Barcelona, Spain.

Sonia Egido-Moreno
Department of Odontostomatology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, School of Dentistry, University Campus of Bellvitge, University of Barcelona, Barcelona Dental Hospital [HOUB], 08970 Barcelona, Spain.

 

Xavier Roselló Llabrés

Department of Odontostomatology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, School of Dentistry, University Campus of Bellvitge, University of Barcelona, Barcelona Dental Hospital [HOUB], 08970 Barcelona, Spain.

 

Mohammed Hameed
Department of Diagnostic Science and Oral Biology, Faculty of Dentistry, King Khalid University, Abha 61421, Saudi Arabia.

 

Albert Estrugo-Devesa
Department of Odontostomatology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, School of Dentistry, University Campus of Bellvitge, University of Barcelona, Barcelona Dental Hospital [HOUB], 08970 Barcelona, Spain.

 

Please see the book here:- https://doi.org/10.9734/bpi/mria/v7/897