Craniomaxillofacial Trauma & Reconstruction

Maxillofacial skeletal reconstruction presents significant challenges due to anatomical complexity, functional requirements, and aesthetic demands. Traditional materials such as titanium and autogenous bone grafts have limitations, prompting interest in Polyetheretherketone (PEEK), a versatile thermoplastic polymer with advantages like biocompatibility, radiolucency, and elasticity similar to human bone. This multi-year case series evaluates the clinical outcomes of PEEK implants used in 56 cases on 53 patients for maxillofacial reconstruction, primarily for trauma (44 patients) and deformity (9 patients). PEEK implants were applied to various facial regions including the orbit, zygoma, mandible, and maxilla. The majority of surgeries utilised virtual surgical planning. Patient-specific implants were fabricated using 3D imaging technologies, allowing customisation for optimal fit and functionality. The mean patient age was 37 years with a split of 37 to 16 females. Some complications were noted such as infection and paraesthesia. However, the majority of patients experienced positive outcomes. The findings support PEEK implants as a safe, effective, and adaptable material for maxillofacial surgery, with potential for further advancements in material properties and surgical technologies to improve long-term outcomes.

Jaw fracture management significantly advanced with the introduction of Erich Arch Bars (EABs) during World War II, becoming the gold standard for maxillomandibular fixation (MMF). EABs, however, are time-consuming, pose risks of sharps injuries, and hinder oral hygiene and patient comfort. This study tested the Minne Ties Hybrid Arch Bar System (MTHAB), a novel MMF technology. This cadaveric study used specimens with near-complete dentition to compare MTHAB and EABs. The technologies were applied by trained surgeons to measure occlusal forces, increasing elastic loads, and application and removal times. Surgeons completed structured usability surveys. The results indicated that MTHAB significantly reduced application time (19.8 ± 4.1 min versus 35.2 ± 5.7 min, p = 0.0027) and removal time (1.6 ± 0.4 min versus 5.1 ± 2.1 min, p = 0.0465) compared to EABs, while also being rated higher for ease of use and safety. Both technologies achieved acceptable occlusion forces, although MTHAB needed more elastics to achieve comparable forces to EABs. While MTHAB appears promising, future clinical trials are needed to evaluate long-term outcomes, fixation stability, and patient selection. MTHAB represents a potential advancement in MMF technology, balancing surgical efficiency, safety, and fixation strength.

Healthcare-associated infections remain an ongoing concern across medical and dental practice, prompting continuous evaluation of infection prevention measures. In dental extractions, the necessity of sterile gloves is debated, as the oral cavity represents an inherently contaminated environment. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated whether the use of sterile gloves reduces postoperative socket infections compared with non-sterile gloves. A search of MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Google Scholar identified randomized controlled trials, clinically controlled trials, and observational trials directly comparing sterile versus non-sterile glove use during dental extractions. The primary outcome of this study was extraction socket infection at day 7 post-surgery. A meta-analysis using relative risk (RR) was performed for dichotomous data. Of the initial 7170 publications found, seven articles met inclusion criteria. Infection rates ranged from 0% to 3.9%, with an overall infection rate of 0.3% in the sterile glove group (672 patients) and 1.3% in the non-sterile glove group (758 patients). Three studies qualified for meta-analysis, resulting in an RR of 0.30 (95% CI 0.07–1.24), indicating no significant difference in postoperative infections between sterile and non-sterile glove usage. Given the limitations of small sample sizes, low event rates, incomplete reporting, and lack of subgroup data for surgical versus non-surgical extractions, no difference in postoperative infection was found between sterile and non-sterile glove use. Additional research is needed to determine whether glove sterility influences infection risk, particularly in surgical procedures.