Evaluation of different treatments for oroantral/oronasal communications: experience of 112 cases

dc.creatorAbuabara, A
dc.creatorCortez, ALV
dc.creatorPasseri, LA
dc.creatorde Moraes, M
dc.creatorMoreira, RWF
dc.date2006
dc.dateFEB
dc.date2014-11-20T04:34:57Z
dc.date2015-11-26T16:05:42Z
dc.date2014-11-20T04:34:57Z
dc.date2015-11-26T16:05:42Z
dc.date.accessioned2018-03-28T22:54:41Z
dc.date.available2018-03-28T22:54:41Z
dc.identifierInternational Journal Of Oral And Maxillofacial Surgery. Churchill Livingstone, v. 35, n. 2, n. 155, n. 158, 2006.
dc.identifier0901-5027
dc.identifierWOS:000235070700009
dc.identifier10.1016/j.ijom.2005.04.024
dc.identifierhttp://www.repositorio.unicamp.br/jspui/handle/REPOSIP/65804
dc.identifierhttp://www.repositorio.unicamp.br/handle/REPOSIP/65804
dc.identifierhttp://repositorio.unicamp.br/jspui/handle/REPOSIP/65804
dc.identifier.urihttp://repositorioslatinoamericanos.uchile.cl/handle/2250/1265772
dc.descriptionThis retrospective study analyzed the etiologic factors, location and treatments for patients with oroantral or oronasal communications (OAC or ONC). Data analysis extended to gender, age, etiology, location, type of treatment and short-term complications from January 1988 to May 2004. A total of 112 patients with 101 (90%) OAC and 11 (10%) ONC were included. The main etiology for OAC was tooth extraction (95%) with similar prevalence between right (49%) and left (51%) side. For ONC, pathological conditions (27%) and exodontia (27%) were the most prevalent. For the treatment of OAC, suture was the technique most frequently used (60%), followed by buccal fat pad (28%), buccal flap (9%), palatal flap (2%) and one dental transplant (1%). For ONC, the following treatments were used: suture (46%), buccal flap (36%) and palatal flap (18%). Failure to eliminate the communication occurred in six (6%) patients of the OAC group and three (27%) of the ONC group. The results confirm that tooth extraction was the most common etiologic factor for ONC and OAC. Suture, when the communication was small (3-5 mm), and the use of a buccal fat pad (100% successful), when a larger communication existed (> 5 mm), seemed to be the two best choices for treatment.
dc.description35
dc.description2
dc.description155
dc.description158
dc.languageen
dc.publisherChurchill Livingstone
dc.publisherEdinburgh
dc.publisherEscócia
dc.relationInternational Journal Of Oral And Maxillofacial Surgery
dc.relationInt. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg.
dc.rightsfechado
dc.sourceWeb of Science
dc.subjectBuccal Fat Pad
dc.subjectOral Reconstruction
dc.subjectMaxillary Sinus
dc.subjectFistula
dc.subjectClosure
dc.subjectGraft
dc.titleEvaluation of different treatments for oroantral/oronasal communications: experience of 112 cases
dc.typeArtículos de revistas


Este ítem pertenece a la siguiente institución